AinerMaii 


JSK  OK  "riii^: 


Stom  t^e  £i6rar)?  of 

Q$equeat0e^  6)?  ^im  fo 
f^e  feifirarg  of 

(Princeton  S^eofogicaf  ^eminarg 

^5188 
.A5I5 

Copy  Z 


HISTOEIOAL   ACOOUI^T 


WORK  OF  THE 


America:^  Committee  of  REvisioisr 


OF  THE 


Authorized  Eng-lish  Version  of  the  Bible, 


PREPARED  FROM  THE  DOCUMENTS 
AND  CORRESPONDENCE  OF  THE  COMMITTEE. 


NEW  YORK: 
CHARLES    SCRIBNER'S    SONS 

1885. 


PREFATORY  NOTE. 

The  following  Historical  Account  of  the  Anglo-American  Ee- 
vision  of  the  English  Version  of  the  Bible,  so  far  as  it  relates  to 
the  work  of' the  American  Committee,  is  based  upon  the  docu- 
ments and  correspondence  in  their  possession,  and  is,  accordingly, 
of  the  nature  of  a  Documentary  Histoiy.  These  documents  and 
papers  were  arranged  with  great  care  by  the  President,  Kev. 
Philip  Schaff,  D.D.,  and  presented  by  him  to  the  Committee  at 
their  meeting  in  May,  1884;  whereupon  it  was  voted  that  an 
Historical  Account  should  be  prepared  under  the  direction  of  a 
special  committee  of  three  appointed  for  the  purpose.  At  a  sub- 
sequent meeting  of  the  Committee  of  Revision,  held  at  the  Bible 
House,  New  York,  on  the  28th  of  November,  1884,  the  History 
which  is  contained  in  this  volume  was  read,  and  the  following 
vote  was  unanimously  passed  : 

"  That  the  Documentary  History  of  the  Revision  which  has  now 
been  presented  be  adopted  and  printed,  and  that  a  copy  of  the 
same  be  sent  to  each  subscriber  to  the  Memorial  Edition  of  the 
Revised  Version  of  the  Old  Testament." 

May  21,  1885. 


HISTORICAL  ACCOUNT 

OF  THE  WOEK 


OF  THE 


AMERICAN   COMMITTEE   OF   REVISION. 


The  American  Committee  of  Bible  Revision,  as  they  close  tlie 
labors  in  whicb  they  have  been  engaged  for  more  than  twelve 
years,  desire  to  present  to  those  who  have  co-operated  with  them 
by  providing  for  the  necessary  expenses  of  their  undertaking,  a 
brief  historical  account  of  the  origin  and  progress  of  the  work. 
Such  an  account  demands  for  its  completeness  a  statement 
respecting  the  organization  of  the  English  Committee,  and  the 
purpose  which  the  Convocation  of  Canterbury  had  in  view  in  call- 
ing it  into  being  and  committing  to  it  its  appointed  task.  The 
American  body,  as  is  well  known,  was  invited  to  act  by  the 
Committee  which  had  already  been  constituted  in  England.  It 
was  thus  summoned  to  participate  in  a  work,  the  aim  and  prin- 
ciples of  which  were  determined  before  it  began  to  exist,  and  no 
proper  understanding  of  its  own  history  can  be  reached,  except  as 
the  history  of  what  had  taken  place  on  the  other  side  of  the  At- 
lantic is  made  known. 

For  this  reason  the  Committee  avail  themselves  of  an  "Authori- 
tative Exposition  of  the  History  and  Purpose  of  Revision,"  which 
appeared  in  the  London  Times  (weekly  edition).  May  20,  1881, 
and  was  understood  to  have  been  written  by  a  late  prominent 
member  of  the  New  Testament  Company, — believing  that  it  will 
give  the  clearest  and  briefest  presentation  of  what  is  introductory 
to  the  narrative  of  their  own  work,  while,  at  the  same  time,  it  will 
describe  the  method  of  working  in  America  as  well  as  in  England. 
This  Exposition  is  in  the  following  words : 

"  On  a  December  day,  346  years  ago,  the  members  of  the  Upper 
House  of  the  Convocation  of  Canterbury  were  engaged  on  the 
same  subject  which  will  this  day  come  before  that  ancient  body 


2  HISTORICAL    ACCOUNT    OF    THE    WOKK 

— the  faithful  rendering  of  the  Holy  Scriptures  into  the  vulgar 
tongue.  Thej  then  unanimously  agreed  that  the  King  sliould 
vouchsafe  to  decree  that  the  Scriptures  should  be  translated  "  by 
some  honest  and  learned  men  to  be  nominated  by  the  King,  and 
to  be  dehvered  to  the  people  according  to  their  learning."  As  we 
know,  no  immediate  results  followed  this  very  laudable  resolution. 
The  King,  however,  two  years  afterwards,  made  a  proclamation  in 
which,  while  he  stoutly  forbade  the  public  reading  of  the  Scrip- 
tures in  English,  he  did,  nevertheless,  graciously  allow  "  such  as 
can  and  will  read  in  the  English  tongue  "  to  do  so  ''  quietly  and 
reverently,"  and  "  by  themselves  secretly,  at  all  times  and  places 
convenient  for  their  own  instruction."  The  Archbishop,  too,  ap- 
pears to  have  done  his  best.  Cranmer  is  said  to  have  sent  por- 
tions of  Tyndale  s  Testament  to  several  bishops  to  be  reviewed 
and  considered,  and  it  is  said  that  all  returned  their  revisions. 
But  there  the  matter  ended.  The  subject,  indeed,  was  revived  in 
1542,  but  in  a  reactionary  spirit,  and  in  the  sequel  with  an  equally 
unproductive  result. 

The  Convocation  of  Canterbury  of  our  own  day  have,  however, 
been  more  fortunate.  They  have  not  only  suggested  that  a  faith- 
ful rendering  of  the  Scriptures  should  be  undertaken,  but,  by 
means  of  members  of  their  own  body  and  co-optated  scholars 
and  divines,  they  have  completed  one  portion  of  the  work,  and  to- 
day will  publicly  receive  it.  The  Revised  Version  of  the  New 
Testament  will  be  presented  this  morning  to  both  Houses  of  Con- 
vocation. 

Before  we  make  any  comments  on  the  work  itself  we  may,  per- 
haps not  unprofitably,  give  our  readers  some  general  account  of 
the  origin  of  this  really  great  undertaking,  and  briefly  specify  the 
manner  in  which  the  work  has  been  done.  Our  columns  for  the 
last  eleven  years  have  contained  short  notices  of  the  meetings 
that  have  been  held  by  the  Companies,  and  of  the  silent  progress 
of  the  work.  We  may  now  give  the  history  of  that  progress,  and 
also  mention  the  various  circumstances  connected  with  the  early 
history  of  that  portion  of  the  work  that  has  now  been  completed. 

To  find  the  true  origin  of  this  undertaking  we  must  look  back 
about  twenty -five  years.  The  year  1856  was  marked  by  several 
distinct  movements  in  favor  of  a  revision  of  the  Authorised  Ver- 
sion, and  by  one  particularly,  on  which,  as  a  sort  of  first  step  in 
the  now  completed  work,  it  may  be  desirable  to  speak  a  little  in 
detail.     The  subject  was  alluded  to  both  in  Convocation  and  in 


OF   THE    AMERICATSr    COMMITTEE    OF    EEVISION".  6 

Parliament.  On  Febrnarj  1,  1856,  the  late  Canon  Selwyn,  who 
had  long  been  deeply  interested  in  the  subject,  gave  notice  in  the 
Southern  Convocation  of  a  resolution  in  which  Convocation 
was  to  pray  the  Sovereign  to  appoint  a  Koyal  Commission  for  re- 
ceiving and  suggesting  amendments  in  the  Authorised  Version  of 
the  Bible.  The  same  course  was  recommended  in  Parliament  by 
Mr.  Heywood,  one  of  the  members  for  North  Lancashire  ;  but  in 
both  cases  the  result  was  the  same.  Neither  the  clerical  nor  the 
lay  mind  was  prepared  for  such  a  leap  in  the  dark  as  the  appoint- 
ment of  a  commission  to  modify  the  venerable  version  that  has  so 
long  maintained  its  supremacy.  Sir  George  Grey  more  blandly, 
and  Archdeacon  Denison  more  trenchantly,  disposed  of  the  Royal 
Commission,  and,  as  far  as  any  public  action  went,  no  steps  were 
taken,  though  there  were  few  probably,  either  in  Convocation  or 
Parliament,  who  did  not  feel  that  the  subject  could  not  long  be 
postponed. 

Private  effort,  however,  was  much  more  successful.  The  Rev. 
Ernest  Hawkins,  then  secretary  of  the  Society  for  the  Propagation 
of  the  Gospel,  was  so  deeply  impressed  with  the  importance  of 
making  some  organized  effort  that  he  determined  to  try  and 
gather  together  a  small  body  of  scholars  that  should  undertake 
the  revision  of  a  portion  of  the  New  Testament,  and  that  should 
show  by  actual  results  not  only  that  the  work  needed  to  be  done, 
but  that  it  could  be  done,  and  that,  too,  on  safe  and  conservative 
principles.  After  many  efforts  he  succeeded  in  gaining  the  sup- 
port and  co-operation  of  a  few  scholars  who  were  known,  either 
by  their  works  or  by  general  reputation,  to  be  interested  in  the 
study  of  the  New  Testament.  He  drew  together,  in  the  summer 
of  1856,  the  Rev.  Henry  Alford,  afterwards  Dean  of  Canterbury ; 
Rev.  John  Barrow,  D.D.,  Principal  of  St.  Edmund  Hall;  Rev.  C. 
J.  Ellicott,  now  Bishop  of  Gloucester  and  Bristol ;  Rev.  W.  H. 
G.  Humphry,  Vicar  of  St.  Martin's-in-the-Fields  ;  and  Rev.  G. 
Moberly,  D.C.L.,  then  Head-Master  of  Winchester  College  and 
now  Bishop  of  Salisbury.  These  five  scholars  agreed  to  make 
an  attempt  by  the  revision  of  the  Authorised  Version  of  St.  John's 
Gospel.  They  began  their  work  in  the  autumn,  meeting  regu- 
larly at  the  vicarage  of  St.  Martin's-in-the  Fields,  with  their  gentle 
taskmaster,  Ernest  Hawkins,  acting  frequently  as  their  secretary, 
and  they  concluded  the  first  portion  of  their  reyision  in  the  course 
of  the  ensuing  year.  The  Preface — ^a  composition  that  will  still 
bear  attentive  perusal — was  written   by  Dr.  Moberly  ;  the  press 


4  HISTORICAL    ACCOUNT    OF    THE    WORK 

arrangements  were  superintended  by  Canon  Hawkins  ;  and  a  thin 
volume  in  roj'al  octavo,  bearing  the  title  "  The  Authorised  Version 
of  St.  John's  Gospel,  revised  by  Five  Clergymen,"  appeared  in 
March,  1857,  as  the  first  sample  of  a  revision  of  the  Authorised 
Version  produced  by  the  co-operation  of  several  different  minds. 
It  was  followed  by  the  Epistle  to  the  liomans,  the  Epistles  to  the 
Corinthians  (the  preface  to  which  was  written  by  Professor  Elli- 
cott),  and  subsequently  by  the  Epistles  to  the  Galatians,  Ephe- 
sians,  and  Phili])pians,  by  four  of  the  number,  Dr.  Barrow  having 
then  left  England.  The  work  was  very  favorably  received  both  in 
England  and  America.  It  received  the  commendation  of  Arch- 
bishop Trench,  and  was  spoken  of  in  America  by  Mr.  Marsli,  in 
his  lectures  on  the  English  language,  as  "by  far  the  most  judicious 
modern  recension  "  that  was  known  to  him.  It  passed  through 
several  editions,  and,  though  now  almost  forgotten,  must  certainly 
be  considered  as  the  germ  of  the  present  revision.  It  showed 
clearly  two  things — first,  that  a  revision  could  be  made  without 
seriously  interfering  with  either  the  diction  or  the  rhythm  of  the 
Authorised  Version ;  secondly,  that  a  revision,  if  made  at  all, 
must  be  made  by  a  similar  co-operation  of  independent  minds  and 
by  corporate  and  collegiate  discussion.  A  third  fact  also  was  dis- 
closed which  had  a  salutary  effect  in  cliecking  premature  efforts — 
viz.,  that,  as  these  revisers  themselves  said,  the  work  was  "  one 
of  extreme  difficulty,"  and  of  a  difficulty  which  they  believed  was 
"  scarcely  capable  of  being  entirely  surmounted."  And  they  were 
right :  the  present  revision,  good  in  the  main  as  we  certainly  be- 
lieve it  will  be  found  to  be,  confirms  the  correctness  of  their  ex- 
perience. As  we  shall  hereafter  see,  there  are  difficulties  connected 
with  a  conservative  revision  of  the  existing  translation  of  the  Greek 
Testament  that  are  practically  insuperable. 

After  this  effort,  which  from  the  very  first  was  felt  to  be  only 
prelusive  and  tentative,  the  immediate  interest  in  revision  sen- 
sibly languished.  There  were  tliose,  however,  who  were  determined 
that  the  efforts  already  made  should  not  become  utterly  fruitless. 
As  year  by  year  went  onward,  every  change  in  public  opinion  was 
closely  watched  by  those  who  had  taken  part  in  the  revision  just 
mentioned,  and  especially  by  the  Bishop  of  Gloucester  and  Bris- 
tol and  Dean  Alford.  It  was  thought  in  1869  that  many  things 
pointed  to  a  revival  in  the  interest  felt  in  the  revision.  The 
Bishop  and  Dean  frequently  conferred  on  the  subject,  consulted 
all  those   who  were  in  any  degree  likely  to  forward  the  under- 


OF    THE    AMERICAN    COMMITTEE    OF    REVISION.  5 

taking,  and  at  lengtli  obtained  the  hearty  aid  and  support  of 
Bishop  Wilberforce.     The  Bishop  entered   into   the    movement 
with  real  interest,  and,  as  the  sequel  proved,  materially  contri- 
buted to  its  finally  receiving  a  definite  and  authoritative  sanction. 
The  real  difficulty  was  how  to  break  ground.     It  was  urged  by 
those  most  interested  that  precedent  seemed  in  favor  of  a  Royal 
Commission.     In  the  revision  of  1611  the  King  was   the   sole 
actor  ;  and,  in  the  case  of  the  only  other  Bible  that  rests  on  any 
really  valid  authority,  the  Great  Bible,  the  king's  vicegerent.  Lord 
Cromwell,  has  always  been  deemed  to  have  been  the  real  mover, 
and  the  one  to  whom  the  sole  editor,  Coverdale,  was  entirely  re- 
sponsible.    It  was  also  not  forgotten  that,  in  the  two  abortive 
attempts  in  Parliament  and  Convocation  which  have  been  already 
referred  to,  the  proposal  to  proceed  by  way  of  a  Royal  Commission 
was  not  in  itself  objected  to.     There  v\^a3,  further,  this  very  im- 
portant consideration,  that  the  extreme  difficulties  connected  with 
the  choice  of  those  who  were  to  undertake  the  revision  would  be 
much  diminished  in  the  case  of  a  Royal  designation.     Those  not 
chosen  would  be  more  likely  to  accept  the  decision,  and  in  the 
sequel  to  prove  more  impartial  and  tolerant  critics.     The  spretce 
injuria  formce,  as  the  case  of  Hugh  Broughton  in  reference  to  the 
Authorised  Version  very  distinctly  shows,  and  as  the  Revision  of 
1881  will  also  find  out  to  its  cost,  is  a  very  serious  element  in  the 
early  criticisms  that  are  passed  upon  a  work  done  by  a  necessarily 
selected  few  out  of  a  larger  and  hardly  less  competent  body. 
For  these  reasons  it  was  deemed  desirable  that  an  address  to  the 
Crown  should  be  moved  for  in  the  House  of  Lords,  and  in  the 
following  terms :  "  That  a  humble  address  be  presented  to  Her 
Majesty  praying  Her  Majesty  to  appoint  a  Royal  Commission  to 
revise  the  Authorised  Version  in   all  those  passages  wliere  clear 
and  plain  errors,  whether  in  the  Greek  test  originally  adopted  by 
the  translators,  or  in  the  translation  made  from  the  same,  shall, 
on  due  investigation,  be  found  to  exist."     Before,  however,  so  re- 
sponsible a  step  was  taken,  careful  inquiry  was  made  how  far  such 
a  resolution  would  obtain  the  support  of  those  in  authority.     It 
was  found  that  support  could  not  be  promised.     It  was  pointed 
out  that  the  choice  of  the  future  revisers  would  involve  the  greatest 
possible  difficulties ;  that  a  Commission,  really  to  carry  weight, 
must  be  very  inclusive ;  and  that  both  its  size  and  the  necessarily 
heterogeneous  nature  of  its  elements  would  involve  difficulties  in 
the  execution  of  the  work,  and  stUl  more  in  the  final  reception  of 


6  IIISTOEICAL    ACCOUNT    OF    THE    WORK 

it,  tliat  were  judged  to  be  too  great  to  justify  tlie  experiment. 
The  advice,  fraukly  and  considerately  given,  was  acted  upon,  and 
the  plan  of  a  Koyal  Commission  was  at  once  given  up. 

It  was  obvious  that  the  only  other  authoritative  body  before 
which  the  subject  could  be  brought  was  Convocation.  It  was, 
indeed,  feared  that  if  Convocation  undertook  the  work  it  would 
not  unnaturally  choose  the  revisers  mainly  out  of  its  own  mem- 
bers, and  that  thus,  however  well  the  work  might  be  done,  the 
results  would  never  secure  a  really  national  acceptance.  Still, 
there  was  no  choice  left.  If  Convocation  were  not  applied  to,  it 
was  clear  the  work  would  have  to  be  postponed  till  a  Royal  Com- 
mission might  seem  more  attainable ;  and  this,  with  the  rapid 
movement  of  modern  thought,  and  the  necessity  for  the  inclusion 
of  very  heterogeneous  elements,  would  evidently  become  year  by 
year  a  more  hopeless  anticipation.  So  it  was  finally  resolved  to 
bring  the  subject  before  Convocation,  and  to  place  that  confidence 
in  the  wisdom  of  the  venerable  body  which  the  sequel  showed 
was  not  placed  there  in  vain. 

All  was  then  arranged,  and  on  February  10,  1870,  the  then 
Bishop  of  Winchester  moved,  and  the  Bishop  of  Gloucester  and 
Bristol  seconded,  the  foUowiug  resolution  : 

"  That  a  committee  of  both  Houses  be  appointed,  with  power 
to  confer  with  any  committee  that  may  be  appointed  by  the  Con- 
vocation of  the  Northern  Province,  to  report  upon  the  desirable- 
ness of  a  revision  of  the  Authorised  Version  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, whether  by  marginal  nottjs  or  otherwise,  in  all  those 
passages  where  plain  and  clear  errors,  whether  in  the  Greek  text 
originally  adopted  by  the  translators,  or  in  the  translation  made 
from  the  same,  shall  on  due  investigation  be  found  to  exist." 

The  resolution  was  afterwards  extended,  on  the  motion  of  the 
Bishop  of  Llandaflf,  seconded  by  the  Bishop  of  St.  David's  (Dr. 
Thirlwall),  to  the  Old  Testament ;  the  necessary  words  were  in- 
serted ;  the  practically  unanimous  assent  of  the  House  was  given 
to  the  amended  resolution,  and  a  committee  appointed.  The 
committee  consisted  of  the  Bishops  of  Winchester  (Dr.  Wilber- 
force),  Gloucester  and  Bristol,  St.  David's,  Llandaff,  Ely  (Dr. 
Browne),  Lincoln,  Bath  and  Wells,  and  Salisbury.  Tiiis  resolu- 
tion was  communicated  at  once  to  the  Lower  House,  and  there 
assented  to  very  readily.  It  was  moved  by  Canon  Selwyn,  and 
seconded  by  Dr.  Jcbb,  that  the  Convocations  of  Armagh  and 


OF    THE    AMERICAN    COMMITTEE    OF    KEVISIOIS'.  7 

Dublin  should  Vje  consulted,  as  well  as  the  Convocation  of  York, 
but  this  addition  seems  afterwards  to  have  fallen  through.  The 
following  committee  of  the  Lower  House  was  then  appointed : 
The  Prolocutor  (Dr.  Bickersteth),  the  Deans  of  Canterbury  (Dr. 
Alford),  Westminster,  and  Lincoln  (Dr.  Jeremie) ;  the  Archdeacons 
of  Bedford  (Mr.  Rose),  Exeter  (Mr.  Freeman),  and  Rochester ; 
Chancellor  Massingberd  ;  Canons  Blakesley,  How,  Selwyn,  Swain- 
son,  and  Woodgate ;  Dr.  Kay,  Dr.  Jebb,  and  Mr.  De  Winton. 

The  subject  was  discussed  shortly  afterwards  by  the  Convoca- 
tion of  York,  but,  unfortunately,  owing  to  completely  exaggerated 
fears  as  to  the  nature  of  the  proposal,  the  Northern  Convoca- 
tion declined  to  co-operate. 

The  Joint  Committee  of  the  Convocation  of  Canterbury,  formed 
of  the  two  lists  just  specified,  met  March  24,  1870,  and  drew  up 
their  report  in  the  form  of  the  following  resolutions  : 

"  1.  That  it  is  desirable  that  a  revision  of  the  Authorised  Ver- 
sion of  the  Holy  Scriptures  be  undertaken. 

"  2.  That  the  revision  be  so  conducted  as  to  comprise  both 
marginal  renderings  and  such  emendations  as  it  may  be  found 
necessary  to  insert  in  the  text  of  the  Authorised  Version. 

"  3.  That  in  the  above  resolutions  we  do  not  contemplate  any 
new  translation  of  the  Bible,  or  any  alteration  of  the  language, 
except  where  in  the  judgment  of  the  most  competent  scholars  such 
change  is  necessary. 

"  4.  That  in  such  necessary  changes  the  st^de  of  the  language 
employed  in  the  existing  version  be  closely  followed. 

"5.  That  it  is  desirable  that  Convocation  should  nominate  a 
body  of  its  own  members  to  undertake  the  work  of  revision,  who 
shall  be  at  liberty  to  invite  the  co-operation  of  any  eminent  for 
scholarship,  to  whatever  nation  or  religious  body  they  may 
belong." 

The  report  was  presented  May  3,  and  the  following  resolution 
adopted  : 

"  That  a  committee  be  now  appointed  to  consider  and  report  to 
Convocation  a  scheme  of  revision  on  the  principles  laid  down  in 
the  report  now  adopted.  That  the  Bishops  of  Winchester,  St. 
David's,  Llandaff,  Gloucester  and  Bristol,  Salisbury,  Ely,  Lincoln, 
and  Bath  and  Wells,  be  members  of  the  committee.  That  the 
committee  be  empowered  to  invite  the  co-operation  of  those  whom 


8  HISTORICAL    ACCOUNT    OF   THE    WORK 

they  may  judge  fit  from  tlicir  Biblical  scholarship  to  aid  them  in 
their  work." 

This  resolution  was  communicated  to  the  Lower  House.  After 
one  day  of  discussion,  and.  some  consideration  of  details  on  the 
following  day,  the  report  of  the  large  Joint  Committee  was  adopted, 
and  the  following  members  of  the  Lower  House  appointed  to 
co-operate  with  the  Bishops  above  mentioned  in  carrying  out  the 
work  :  the  Prolocutor,  the  Deans  of  Canterbury  and  Westminster, 
the  Archdeacon  of  Bedford,  Canons  Selwyn  and  Blakesley,  Dr. 
-Jebb,  and  Dr.  Kay. 

This  second  or,  so  to  speak,  executive,  committee  then  seriously 
took  the  work  in  hand.  They  first  met  May  25,  divided  them- 
selves into  two  bodies,  or,  as  they  were  afterwards  called.  Com- 
panies, the  one  for  the  Old  Testament,  the  other  for  the  New,  and 
proceeded  to  the  difficult  and  delicate  task  of  choosing  colleagues, 
and  of  framing  general  and  special  rules  for  the  carrying  on  of  the 
work.  The  labors  of  the  Committee  were  lightened  by  the  fact 
that  those  originally  most  interested  in  the  cause  had  ah'eady 
carefully  collected  the  names  of  scholars  who  were  judged  to  be 
most  likely  to  aid  the  undertaking,  and,  when  the  Committee  met, 
had  a  sufficiently  full  list  to  present  to  it.  The  general  and 
special  rules  had  also  been  prepared  beforehand  in  draft  by  the 
Bishop  of  Gloucester  and  Bristol,  and  were  accepted  with  but 
slight  modifications. 

The  names  of  those  invited  at  the  above  meeting,  and  at  a  short 
subsequent  meeting  on  July  5,  to  become  members  of  the  Old 
Testament  Company  were  as  follow :  Bev.  Dr.  W.  L.  Alexander, 
Mr.  Bensly,  Professor  Chenery,  Bev.  Canon  Cook,  Bev.  Professor 
A.  B.  Davidson,  Bev.  Dr.  B.  Davies,  Bev.  Dr.  Douglas,  Professor 
Fairbairn,  Eev.  P.  Field,  Bev.  J.  D.  Geden,  Bev.  Dr.  Ginsburg, 
Bev.  Dr.  Gotch,  Ven.  Archdeacon  Harrison,  Bev.  Professor 
Leathes,  Bev.  Professor  M'Gill,  Bev.  Canon  Payne  Smith,  Bev. 
Professor  J.  H.  Perowne,  Bev.  Professor  Plumptre,  Bev.  Canon 
Pusey,  Bev.  Dr.  Weir,  Dr.  Wright  (British  Museum),  and  Mr.  W. 
A.  Wright  (Cambridge). 

The  names  of  those  invited  at  the  meetings  of  May  25  and  July 
5  to  become  members  of  the  New  Testament  Company  were  as 
follow  :  The  Archbishop  of  Dublin,  the  Bishop  of  St.  Andrews, 
Bev.  Dr.  Angus,  Rev.  Dr.  David  Brown,  Bev.  F.  J.  A.  Hort,  Bev. 
Prebendary  Humphry,  Bev.   Canon  Kennedy,  Ven.  Archdeacon 


OF   THE    AMERICAlSr    COMMITTEE    OF    REVISIOJN".  9 

Lee,  Rev.  Dr.  Liglitfoot,  Eev.  Professor  Milligan,  Kev.  Professor 
Moil] ton,  Rev.  Dr.  Newman,  Rev.  Professor  Newth,  Rev.  Dr. 
Roberts,  Rev.  G.  Vance  Smith,  Rev.  Dr.  Scott  (Master  of  Balliol 
College),  Rev.  Dr.  Scrivener,  Rev.  Dr.  Thompson  (Master  of 
Trinity  College,  Cambridge),  Rev.  Dr.  Tregelles,  Rev.  Dr.  Yaughan, 
and  Rev.  Canon  Westcott. 

Of  this  long  list  of  names  some  declined  to  take  tlie  position 
offered  to  them,  though  in  every  case  with  a  courteous  and  friendly 
recognition  of  the  proffered  honor.  Among  these  were  Canons 
Cook  and  Pusey,  Dr.  Thompson  and  Dr.  Newman.  The  Bishop 
of  Lincoln  and  Dr.  Jebb  also  soon  afterwards  resigned  their 
places  on  the  Old  Testament  Company.  Of  the  New  Testament 
Company  (with  which  we  are  now  more  immediately  concerned), 
it  may  be  here  mentioned  that  four  were  removed  by  death 
previous  to  the  completion  of  the  work — viz.,  Dean  Alford,  Dr. 
Tregelles,  Bishop  Wilberforce  and  Dr.  Eadie.  As  Dr.  Tregelles 
was  never  able  to  attend,  and  Bishop  Wilberforce  only  attended 
once,  their  places  were  not  filled  up.  The  place  of  Dean  Alford 
was  supplied  by  Dean  Merivale,  who,  after  attending  for  a  short 
time,  resigned,  and  was  succeeded  by  Professor  Palmer,  now  Arch- 
deacon of  Oxford.  The  place  of  Dr.  Eadie  was  not  filled  up,  as 
his  death  took  place  at  a  time  when  much  of  the  work  was  done. 
The  number  of  the  working  members  of  the  New  Testament  Com- 
pany was  thus  for  the  greater  portion  of  the  time  twenty-four, 
and  so  continued  to  the  close  of  the  work. 

The  first  meeting  of  the  New  Testament  Company  took  place 
on  June  22,  1S70,  under  the  presidency  of  the  Bishop  of 
Gloucester  and  Bristol,  who  held  the  position  of  chairman  unin- 
terruptedly to  the  end  of  the  ten  years  and  a  half,  over  which  the 
labors  of  the  revision  extended.  The  titular  chairman.  Bishop 
Wilberforce,  attended  once  for  about  a  couple  of  hours ;  but  it 
became,  even  in  that  time,  apparent  to  the  Company,  and  perhaps 
was  so  to  the  Bishop  himself,  that  a  little  lighter  hand  and  looser 
rein  were  required  to  guide  the  Company  pleasantly  through  the 
intricacies  of  criticism  and  scholarship  in  which  they  were  almost 
hourly  finding  themselves  involved.  The  Bishop,  however, 
remained  a  kind  friend  to  the  movement,  which  his  own  eloquence 
had  so  largely  assisted,  and  was  interested  in  it  to  the  time  of  his 
lamented  death. 

During  the  remainder  of  the  year  the  work  went  quietly  on- 
ward.    The  New  Testament  Company  found  an  able  and  accurate 


10  HISTORICAL    ACCOUNT    OF   THE    WORK 

secretary  in  the  Kev.  J.  Troutbeck,  one  of  the  Minor  Canons  of 
Westmiuster,  and  soon  became  thoroughly  organized  and  habit- 
uated to  their  complicated  labors.  In  the  second  year  of  the 
work  some  difficulties  that  beset  them  were  completely  removed. 
The  Delegates  of  the  Oxford  University  Press  and  the  Syndics  of 
the  Cambridge  University  Press  entered  into  a  liberal  arrange- 
ment with  the  two  Companies  by  which  funds  were  regulai-ly 
forthcoming  for  all  their  expenses.  It  may  be  remembered  that 
the  revisers  of  1611  were  by  no  means  so  fortuuate,  and  that  the 
way  in  which  their  expenses  were  met  during  the  greater  period 
of  their  labors  was  ver}^  far  from  satisfactory. 

The  year  that  follow^ed  was  marked  by  an  event  of  great  im- 
portance to  the  cause  of  revision — the  formation  in  America  of 
two  Committees  *  to  co-operate  with  the  two  English  Companies. 
Into  the  details  of  this  movement  in  America,  all  of  which  are  full 
of  interest,  our  space  will  not  allow  us  to  enter.  In  this  more 
general  narrative  it  may  be  enough  to  say  that  on  July  7,  1870, 
it  was  moved  in  the  Lower  House  of  Convocation  by  the  present 
Prolocutor  (Lord  Alwyne  Compton)  that  the  Upper  House  should 
be  requested  to  instruct  the  Committee  of  Convocation  "  to  invite 
the  co-operation  of  some  American  divines."  This  was  at  once 
assented  to  by  the  Upper  House.  It  was,  we  believe,  afterwards 
unofficially  agreed  that  Bishop  Wilberforce  and  the  Dean  of 
Westminster  should  undertake  to  act  for  the  Committee  in  open- 
ing communications — the  Bishop  with  the  Episcopal  Church,  the 
Dean  with  the  leading  members  of  other  communions.  The  result 
of  this  was  that  towards  the  close  of  1871  two  Committees  were 
formed  in  America  to  communicate  with  the  two  English  Com- 
panies on  the  basis  of  the  rules  that  had  been  already  laid  down 
for  the  revisers  in  this  country.  Very  soon  afterwards  portions 
of  the  first  revision  that  had  by  that  time  been  finished  in  England 
were  transmitted  to  America,  and  a  system  of  communication 
fully  established.  The  work  then  went  on  continuously  in  both 
countries,  the  English  Companies  revising,  and  the  American 
Committees  reviewing  what  was  thus  revised,  and  returning  their 
suggestions,  both  as  regards  the  first  and  second  revision,  to  the 
two  Companies  at  Westminster,  The  volume  that  will  be 
published  this  day  will  contain  a  list  of  readings  and  renderings 
in  which  the  American  divines  ultimately  differ  from  the  revisers  in 

[*  One  Committee,  divided  into  two  Companies.] 


OF   THE  AMERICAN    COMMITTEE    OF    REVISION.  11 

this  country.  When  this  list  is  fully  considered,  the  general  reader 
will,  we  think,  be  surprised  to  find  that  the  differences  are  really 
of  such  little  moment,  aud  in  very  many  cases  will  probably  won- 
der that  the  American  divines  thouglit  it  worth  while  thus  to 
formally  record  their  dissent.* 

Such  is  a  brief  sketch  of  the  history  of  the  movement.  It  may 
now  be  convenient  to  mention  the  manner  in  which  the  actual 
work  of  revision  was  carried  on  by  the  Company.  This  will  be 
more  easily  understood  if  we  specify  the  principal  rules  which 
were  laid  down  at  the  commencement  of  the  undertaking,  and  to 
which  allusion  has  already  been  made  in  the  earlier  part  of  this 
narrative.     These  rules  were  as  follows  : 

"1.  To  introduce  as  few  alterations  as  possible  in  the  text  of 
the  Authorised  Version  consistently  with  faithfulness. 

"  2.  To  limit,  as  far  as  possible,  the  expression  of  such  alterations 
to  the  language  of  the  Authorised  and  earlier  English  versions. 

"8.  Each  Company  to  go  twice  over  the  portion  to  be  revised, 
once  provisionally,  the  second  time  finally,  and  on  principles  of 
voting  as  hereinafter  is  provided. 

"  4.  That  the  text  to  be  adopted  be  that  for  which  the  evidence 
is  decidedly  preponderating  ;  and  that  when  the  text  so  adopted 
differs  from  that  from  which  the  Authorised  Version  was  made, 
the  alteration  be  indicated  in  the  margin. 

"  5.  To  make  or  retain  no  change  in  the  text  on  the  second 
final  revision  by  each  Company  except  two-thirds  of  those  present 
approve  of  the  same,  but  on  the  first  revision  to  decide  by  simple 
majorities. 

"  6.  In  every  case  of  proposed  alteration  that  may  have  given 
rise  to  discussion,  to  defer  the  voting  thereupon  till  the  next 
meeting,  whensoever  the  same  shall  be  required  by  one-third  of 
those  present  at  the  meeting,  such  intended  vote  to  be  announced 
in  the  notice  for  the  next  meeting. 

"7.  To  revise  the  headings  of  chapters,  pages,  paragraphs, 
italics,  and  punctuation. 

"  8.  To  refer,  on  the  part  of  each  Company,  when  considered 
desirable,  to  divines,  scholars,  and  literary  men,  whether  at  home 
or  abroad,  for  their  opinions." 

In  conformity  with  these  rules  the  whole  of  the  Authorised 
Version  of  the  New  Testament  underwent  a  first  revision.     This 

[*  With  this  judgment  few  Americans  will  agree.] 


12  HISTOEICAL    ACCOUNT    OF    THE    WORK 

extended  over  six  years.  The  results  were  arrived  at,  in  accord- 
ance with  rule  5,  b}'  simple  majorities,  the  Authorised  Version 
having  no  further  advantage  than  this — that  it  was  considered  to 
be  the  form  before  the  Compau}^,  and  that  in  accordance  with  the 
system  of  voting  in  the  House  of  Lords  it  was  maintained  if  the 
votes  were  equal.  This  first  revision  was  transmitted,  portion  by 
portion,  to  America,  and  returned  with  the  suggestions  of  the 
American  Committee,  their  rules  (as  we  have  already  implied) 
being  the  same  as  those  laid  down  for  the  English  Company. 

On  the  completion  of  the  first  revision,  the  whole  was  gone  over 
again,  with  the  advantage  of  the  criticisms  and  suggestions  of  the 
American  Committee,  but  the  voting  was  under  changed  prin- 
ciples. The  Authorised  Version  was  placed  in  a  position  of  dis- 
tinct advantage,  and  if  raised  in  competition  with  the  first 
revision,  whether  English  or  American,  could  only  be  prevented 
from  returning  by  two-thirds  voting  against  it.  Where  there  was 
a  difi'erence  of  reading  in  the  Greek,  the  rule  of  two-thirds 
was  not  considered  applicable,  and  the  question  was  decided  by  a 
simple  majority.  Many  renderings  that  had  been  removed  from 
the  Authorised  Version  were  thus  brought  back  again,  though  by 
no  means  to  so  large  an  extent  as  might  have  been  beforehand 
suppoised.  The  Company  had  been  silently  accumulating  for 
itself  a  rough  code  of  principles,  and  commonly  remained  true  to 
them,  even  when  the  Authorised  Version  was  raised  in  opposition 
to  the  newly  formed  revision.  Close  and  continued  inspection 
had  also  served  to  reveal  that,  admirable  and  thoroughly  idio- 
matic as  the  Authorised  Version  might  be,  it  was  frequently  very 
far  from  consistent :  nay,  even  that  it  studiously  affected  a  variety 
of  diction  when  there  was  nothing  to  justify  it  in  the  original. 
These  and  other  considerations  led  to  the  maintenance  of  the  first 
revision  to  a  greater  extent  than  at  first  seemed  probable. 

The  second  revision,  like  the  first,  was  communicated,  portion 
by  portion,  to  the  American  Committee,  and  by  them  returned 
with  criticisms  and  suggestions.  This,  combined  with  the  obvious 
necessity  of  endeavoring  to  preserve  a  harmony  of  rendering,  as 
far  as  it  was  reasonable  and  possible,  led  to  a  further  review  of 
the  whole  work,  under,  however,  this  common-sense  condition, 
that  the  now  twice-revised  version  was  not  to  be  clianged  except 
by  a  majority  of  two-thirds.  The  Revised  Version,  in  fact,  then 
had  the  prerogative  which  had  belonged  to  the  Authorised  Version 
at  an  earlier  stage  of  the  work. 


OF    THE    AMEEICAN    COMMITTEE    OF    EEVISION.  13 

Such  in  general  outline  was  the  course  of  the  procedure.  Fuller 
details  will  be  found  in  the  Preface,  but  the  above  fairly  repre- 
sents the  broad  principles  on  which  the  Revised  Version  was  con- 
structed, and  will  probably  suggest  some  confidence  in  the  results. 
The  Authorised  Version  had  that  supremacy  assigned  to  it  which 
the  spirit  of  the  rules  absolutely  required,  and  which,  it  may  be 
said,  the  revisers  were  always  ready  most  loyally  to  concede  to  it. 
The  occasions,  however,  would  of  course  be  many  in  which  the 
grave  question  of  what  constitutes  "faithfulness"  (Rule  1)  would 
be  somewhat  differently  interpreted  by  the  individual  members  of 
a  large  company.  A  merely  tentative  revision,  after  which  much 
Avouid  still  remain  to  be  done  at  a  future  time,  would  have  been 
a  grave  mistake.  This  has  certainly  not  been  the  case  with  the 
present  work.  Revision  has  been  carried  out  to  a  fair  and  reason- 
able extent,  but  not,  as  it  would  appear,  in  any  degree  beyond  it. 

The  same  remark  applies  in  great  measure  to  the  critical  work 
of  the  Company  in  connection  with  the  Greek  text,  which,  we  are 
glad  to  find,  is  to  be  published  in  a  clear  and  handsome  form  by 
the  University  Press  of  Oxford.  The  principle  in  regard  to  text- 
ual criticism,  it  will  be  observed,  was  prescribed  to  be  that  of 
change  only  on  "  decidedly  preponderating  evidence,"  But  here, 
as  in  the  case  of  faithfulness  in  regard  to  the  rendering,  it  is  ob- 
vious that  the  estimate  of  what  really  constitutes  decidedly  pre- 
ponderating evidence  will  be  widely  different  with  equally  honest 
and  impartial  critics.  To  one,  the  long  array  of  uncial  witnesses, 
even  though  it  may  be  almost  certain  that  the  mass  of  them  were 
reproductions  of  some  common  exemplar,  will  seem  clearly  to 
constitute  "  decidedly  preponderating  evidence."  To  another, 
who  may  be  guided  by  the  well-known  canon  non  numerare  sed 
appendere,  the  concurrence  of  a  comparatively  small  number  of 
ancient  authorities,  representing  independent  textual  traditions, 
and  found  by  experience  to  be  most  worthy  of  credit,  may  be  re- 
garded, and  justly  regarded,  as  distinctly  evidence  of  the  nature 
referred  to  in  the  rule.  It  seems  clear  that  this  last  was  the  pre- 
vailing interpretation  given  to  the  rule  by  the  majority  of  the 
Company,  so  that,  in  textual  criticism  as  well  as  rendering,  a 
decided  line  has  been  taken,  and  a  standard  maintained  happily 
beyond  that  of  a  mere  provisional  and  temporary  revision. 

There  seems  reason  to  believe  that  a  close  examination  will 
show  this  to  have  been  very  consistently  maintained,  and  that  the 
evil  of  a  text  sometimes  up  to  a  good  critical  standard,  and  some- 


14  HISTOEICAL    ACCOUNT    OF   THE    WORK 

times  decidedly  below  it,  has  been  successfully  avoided.  It  might 
have  been  supposed  from  the  action  of  the  rule  requiring  two- 
thirds  to  reverse  a  reading  supposed  to  underlie  the  Authorised 
Version,  and,  still  more,  from  the  necessarily  fluctuating  nature 
of  the  Company  from  month  to  month,  and  sometimes  even  from 
day  to  day,  that  such  a  standard  could  hardly  have  been  main- 
tained. It  must,  however,  be  reniembered  that  loyalty  to  prin- 
ciples already  felt  out  would  alwajs  tend  to  repress  any  disturb- 
ing use  of  the  rule ;  and,  further,  that,  in  spite  of  fluctuations, 
there  was  a  stable  element  in  the  Company  which  greatly  helped 
in  keeping  up  its  traditions  and  principles.  The  punctuality  of 
attendance  is,  indeed,  one  of  the  most  striking  features  of  this  un- 
dertaking ;  and  when  the  length  of  the  time  is  considered,  and  the 
distances  at  which  many  of  the  members  resided  from  the  place 
of  meeting,  probably  unexampled  in  the  history  of  committees. 
Out  of  the  407  meetings  the  chairman  attended  405  times.  Some 
others  reached  also  a  very  high  standard ;  and,  of  those  who 
attended  more  tlian  three-fourths  of  the  whole  series  of  meetings, 

^  the  number  amounted  fully  to  one-third  of  the  whole  Company. 
The  existence  of  this  comparatively  stable  element  has  tended 

/  to  preserve  harmony  and  consistency,  and  will  be  found  to  have 
been  an  important  element  in  the  success  which  we  believe  has 
been  achieved  by  the  work. 

A  very  noticeable  feature  in  the  volume  is  the  large  amount  of 
marginal  notes.  Of  these  some  are  short  notes  bearing  on  differ- 
ences of  reading  in  the  Greek  text  adopted  by  the  revisers,  but 
the  greater  number  are  short  notes  specifying  differences  of  ren- 
dering, which,  either  as  having  been  preferred  by  a  minority  of  the 
Company  or  as  having  been  advocated  by  scholars  of  eminence, 
it  seemed  proper  to  specify.  In  the  case  of  the  Authorised  Ver- 
sion, it  has  often  been  said  that  the  marginal  note  presents  the 
rendering  which  was  probably  deemed  by  the  revisers  of  that  day 
to  be  really  the  most  accurate.  However  this  may  be,  the  remark 
will  not  apply  to  the  Revised  Version.  The  text  adopted  repre- 
sents that  rendering  which  was  deemed  by  at  least  one-third  of 
the  Company  then  present  to  be  correct  in  the  case  of  maintain- 
ing a  rendering  of  the  Authorised  Version,  and  of  at  least  two- 
thirds  in  departing  from  it.  The  text,  therefore,  as  is  obviously 
most  desirable,  records  plainly  the  opinion  either  of  the  actual 
clear  majority  of  tliose  who  considered  and  discussed  the  render- 
ing, or  of  that  portion  of  them  which  constituted  a  legal  majority. 


OF    THE    AMERICA ISr    COMMITTEE    OF    KEVISION.  15 

We  have  thus  in  the  Kevised  Yersion  a  clear  expression  of  an 
opinion,  and  are  left  in  no  uncertainty,  as  is  sometimes  the  case 
in  the  Authorised  Version,  as  to  the  actual  meaning  that  is  deemed 
to  be  conveyed  by  the  original  Greek. 

The  last  portion  of  the  work  of  the  revisers  is  the  Preface,  a 
carefully  constructed  and  elaborate  document,  in  which  the  prin- 
ciples on  which  the  revision  has  been  made  are  set  forth  with 
considerable  fulness  of  detail.  This  important  introduction  to  the 
study  of  the  volume  was  thus  constructed :  it  was  prepared  in 
draft  by  the  chairman  several  months  before  the  conclusion  of  tlie 
work.  A  copy  was  sent  round  to  each  member  inviting  remarks 
and  corrections.  The  copies  so  sent  out  were  returned  to  the 
chairman,  and  formed  the  basis  of  a  second  and  revised  edition 
of  the  original  draft.  The  document  so  amended  was  finally  con- 
sidered by  the  whole  body  collectively,  and,  after  careful  revision, 
accepted  as  the  authoritative  description  of  their  work.  It  is  to 
be  hojDed,  in  justice  to  the  revision,  that  no  formal  criticisms  will 
be  passed  on  the  labors  of  the  Company  until  this  careful  and  ex- 
plicit document  has  been  thoroughly  mastered.  If  it  teaches 
anything  it  will  teach  this — first,  that  the  revision  of  a  translation 
such  as  the  Authorized  Yersion  is  a  work  of  almost  insuperable 
difficulty ;  secondly,  that  criticism,  to  be  just,  must  not  content 
itself  with  merely  sporadic  approval  or  disapproval  of  the  render- 
ings adopted,  but  must  first  intelligently  master  all  the  circum- 
stances, conditions,  and  modifying  details  of  the  highly  compli- 
cated undertaking. 

What  is  stated  by  the  revisers  on  the  subject  of  alterations  ren- 
dered necessary  iy  consequence  is  well  worthy  of  the  most  careful 
attention.  From  the  single  example  that  is  adduced  it  will  readily 
be  inferred  what  strong  reasons  there  may  be  in  the  background 
for  changes  which  a  mere  off-hand  critic  might  condemn  with  some 
passing  show  of  plausibility.  A  work  executed  with  the  obvious  care 
and  devotion  to  the  subject  which  every  paragraph  of  the  revision 
abundantly  displays  may,  with  justice,  deprecate  a  criticism  that 
has  not  taken  equal  pains  to  arrive  at  the  true  aspects  of  the 
passage  or  the  circumstances  under  consideration.  That  there 
will  be,  especially  at  first,  much  criticism  of  a  very  precipitate 
nature  is  a  matter  of  the  most  perfect  certainty,  but  it  is  equally 
certain  that  criticism  of  this  nature  will  not  afliect  in  the  slightest 
degree  the  ultimate  and  probably  slowly  formed  estimate  of  the 
present  revision.     What  that  estimate  will  finally  be,  it  would  be 


16  HISTOEICAL    ACCOUjS^T    OF   THE    WORK 

now  utterly  premature  even  to  attempt  to  forecast.  Our  belief  is 
that  in  tlie  main  it  will  be  favorable,  and  the  belief  is  founded 
upon  tlie  unquestionable  fact  that  a  body  of  competent  scholars 
has  bestowed  extraordinary  pains,  for  a  lengthened  period  of  time, 
on  the  revision  alike  of  the  text  and  the  cuiTent  rendering  of  the 
original.  It  seems  contrary  to  experience  that  such  carefully  organ- 
ized efforts  should  ultimately  fail.  It  is  quite  probable  that  here 
and  there  throughout  the  volume  particular  renderings  will  be  ob- 
jected to  on  reasons  that  will  be  ultimately  considered  valid  ;  and 
it  is  to  be  hoped  that  where  such  shoidd  be  the  case  nothing  will 
prevent  the  revisers  from  reconsidering  their  former  decisions. 
This,  as  we  know,  took  place  in  the  case  of  the  Bishops'  Bible  in 
1568,  and  may  properly  take  place,  if  found  necessary,  in  the 
Convocation-Testament  of  1881.  What  is  desired  on  all  hands 
is,  not  ouly  a  technically  correct  rendering,  but  one  also  that  by 
its  diction,  rhythm,  and  loyal  adherence,  where  possible,  to  the 
version  now  in  use,  should  commend  itself  to  the  religious  judg- 
ment of  English-speaking  people  throughout  the  world." 


The  following  account  of  the  meeting  of  Convocation,  at  the 
time  when  the  Kevised  Version  of  the  New  Testament  was  pre- 
sented to  it  by  the  Bevisers,  will  give  the  reader  additional  in- 
formation. 

CONVOCATION  OF  CANTERBUBY. 

May  17.  1881. 

On  Tuesday  both  Houses  of  the  Convocation  of  the  Province  of 
Canterbury  met  at  Westminster  for  the  despatch  of  business. 

THE  UPPEB  HOUSE. 

The  Archbishop  of  Canterbury  presided  over  the  Upper  House, 
M'hich  met  in  the  Board-room  of  Queen  Anne's  Bounty  Office. 
There  were  present  the  Bishop  of  London,  the  Bishop  of  Glouces- 
ter and  Bristol,  the  Bishop  of  St.  Alban's,  the  Bisho23  of  Here- 
ford, the  Bishop  of  Exeter,  the  Bishop  of  St.  Asaph,  the  Bishop 
of  Truro,  the  Bishop  of  Lichfield,  the  Bishop  of  Rochester,  the 
Bishop  of  St.  David's,  the  r>ishop  of  Chichester,  the  Bishop  of 
Ely,  the  Bishop  of  Bath  and  Wells,  the  Bishop  of  Bangor,  and  the 
Bishop  of  Llandafi". 


OF    THE    AMERICAN    COMMITTEE    OF    EEVISION.  17 

The  Archbishop  read  a  message,  which  he  had  ordered  to  be 
sent  to  the  Lower  House,  to  the  effect  that  his  Grace  the  Presi- 
dent desired  the  attendance  of  the  Prolocutor  and  such  members 
of  the  Lower  House  as  could  conveniently  attend  to  receive  the 
report  on  the  revision  of  the  Scriptures. 

In  obedience  to  this  message  the  Prolocutor  (Lord  Alwyne 
Compton)  and  a  very  large  number  of  members  of  the  Lower 
House  attended. 

The  Archbishop,  addressing  them,  said, — 

"  I  have  requested  the  presence  of  the  Prolocutor  and  such  of 
the  members  of  the  Lower  House  as  might  wish  to  take  part  in 
this  solemnity,  as  I  regard  it  as  a  matter  of  great  importance  for 
you  to  hear  now  what  are  the  results  of  the  deliberations  of  the 
body  who  for  many  years  have  been  engaged  upon  the  solemn 
and  onerous  task  of  a  revision  of  the  Holy  Scriptures  in  the  Eng- 
lish tongue.  The  first  report — that  upon  the  New  Testament — 
is  to  be  presented  to-day.  We  have  good  reason  for  believing 
and  hoping  that  at  no  far  distant  date  we  shall  have  the  second 
report — that  upon  the  Old  Testament ;  but  to-day  you  will  have 
only  the  first,  and  I  have  to  call  upon  the  Bishop  of  Gloucester 
and  Bristol,  who  is  the  chairman  of  the  Joint  Committee  on  the 
Bevision,  to  lay  the  report  before  you." 

The  Bishop  of  Gloucester  and  Bristol  presented  the  following 
report : — 

"  The  Joint  Committee  of  the  two  Houses  of  Convocation,  ap- 
pointed May  5, 1870,  for  the  revision  of  the  Authorised  Version  of 
the  Holy  Scriptures,  beg  leave  to  report  that,  with  the  assistance 
of  the  scholars  and  divines  whose  co-operation  they  were 
authorized  to  invite,  they  have  completed  one  portion  of  their 
labors, — viz.,  the  New  Testament, — and  now  present  the  volume 
containing  the  same  to  his  Grace  in  Convocation." 

His  Lordship  then  expressed  his  deep  thankfulness  for  the 
mercies  vouchsafed  to  the  Committee  during  the  long  time  in 
which  they  had  been  engaged  in  the  solemn  and  important  task 
committed  to  their  care  ;  and  he  expressed  also  his  hope  that  the 
blessing  of  God  would  further  rest  upon  those  labors,  and  that  the 
Holy  Scriptures  would  more  and  more  be  brought  to  the  hearts 
and  homes  of  every  English-speaking  people. 

The  Archbishop,  addressing  the  Lower  House,  said  that  he  had 


18  HISTORICAL    ACCOUNT    OF    THE    WORK 

thought  the  occasion  should  not  be  allowed  to  pass  without  his 
expressing,  on  behalf  of  this  Convocation,  the  deep  thanks  of  both 
Houses  to  the  Committee  who  had  undertaken  and  carried  out 
this  work.  Of  course,  this  work  had  not  yet  been  examined,  and 
tlie  Houses  had  yet  to  examine  the  revision  in  detail ;  but,  never- 
theless, the  House  would  be  thankful  to  the  Committee  for  their 
labors. 

The  Lower  House  then  retired  to  their  own  chamber. 

The  Bishop  of  Gloucester  and  Bristol  then  rose  and  said, — 

"I  have  now  the  honor  and  responsibility  of  placing  before 
your  lordships  a  portion  of  the  important  work  assigned  by  Con- 
vocation eleven  years  ago  to  a  joint  committee  of  the  two  Houses 
of  this  province.  I  now  lay  upon  your  lordships'  table  the  revision 
of  the  Authorised  Version  of  the  New  Testament  as  completed  by 
the  Company  of  which  I  have  the  honor  to  be  the  chairman.  In 
placing  before  you  such  a  work,  so  intimately  connected  with  the 
past,  and  so  closely  bound  up  with  the  noblest  labors  of  former 
centuries,  it  is  not  possible  for  me  to  leave  -unnoticed  in  such  a 
speech  as  the  present  the  various  public  efforts  of  which  this  is 
the  last,  that  for  well-nigh  350  years  have  bad  for  their  object  the 
setting  forth,  in  the  tongue  wherein  we  were  born,  of  the  holy  and 
inspired  words  of  the  written  Book  of  Life.  I  must  therefore  ask 
your  lordships  to  bear  with  me  if  I  briefly  allude  to  the  various 
stages  in  the  progress  of  the  great  work,  and  especially  to  the 
share  which  this  House  of  Convocation  has  had  in  aiding  and 
furthering  the  labors  of  the  translators  and  revisers  of  the  past. 
That  share  has  not  been  a  large  one.  Convocation,  till  this  last 
revision,  has  never  taken  any  prominent  part  in  reference  to  the 
successive  translations  of  the  Holy  Scriptures.  Nay,  at  times,  I 
fear,  it  has  shown  itself  hostile  and  reactionary.  Still  it  has  its 
history  in  reference  to  the  English  Bible  ;  and  now  to  that  history, 
as  well  as  to  the  other  movements  that  have  publicly  been  made, 
I  will  at  once  very  briefly  advert.  We  must  look  back  350  years. 
Tyndale's  version  of  the  New  Testament  had  come  over  to  this 
kingdom,  and  had  been  about  four  years  in  private  but  wide- 
spread circulation.  The  souls  of  men  were  profoundly  stirred, 
and  the  desire  to  have  at  length  the  Word  of  God  in  our  own 
mother-tongue  was  vivid  and  universal.  The  first  public  action 
on  the  part  of  the  Church  was,  I  grieve  to  say,  to  condemn  that 
version  which  was  the  bone  and  sinew  of  all  that  have  followed 


OF    THE    AMERICAN    COMMITTEE    OF    REVISION".  19 

it, — Tj^ndale's  translation  of  the  New  Testament.  At  a  Council 
held  at  Westminster,  under  Archbishop  Warham,  in  May,  1530, 
that  version  was  condemned,  but  we  may  be  thankful  also  to  re- 
member that  it  was  agreed  that  the  Archbishop  should  send  out  a 
document  to  be  read  by  all  preachers,  in  which  the  King's  promise 
that  the  Scriptures  should  be  translated  in  English  was  fully  set 
forth.  Four  eventful  years  then  passed  away.  The  King's 
supremacy  was  acknowledged  the  next  year,  and  the  first  steps 
taken  for  emancipating  this  country  from  the  tyranny  of  Bome. 
In  1531  the  subject  of  the  translation  of  the  Scriptures  was  re- 
newed, and  on  the  19th  of  December  in  that  year  this  Upper 
House  of  Convocation  agreed  that  the  Archbishop  should,  in  the 
name  of  the  members  of  the  House, '  make  instance  with  the  King 
that  Holy  Scripture  should  be  translated  into  the  vulgar  tongue.' 
Cranmer  at  once  set  about  the  work  :  he  appears  to  have  sent 
portions  of  Tyndale's  Testament  to  several  bishops  for  review  and 
revision.  The  bishops,  it  would  seem,  all  returned  their  revisions ; 
but,  from  some  cause  or  other,  it  miscarried.  The  next  year 
(1535)  Coverdale's  translation,  dedicated  to  the  King,  stole  into 
this  country,  and  was  allowed  to  circulate,  though  not  formally 
licensed  till  1537.  The  praj-er  of  Convocation  was  thus  still  be- 
fore the  country.  It  was  not  directly  granted,  but  it  appears  to 
have  had  this  indirect  effect,  that,  not  more  than  three  years  after- 
wards, the  royal  license  was  given  to  the  second  edition  of  Cover- 
dale's  Bible,  and  to  Eogers'  or  Matthews'  Bible,  and  that  two 
years  later,  in  1539,  the  Great  Bible  was  published,  of  which  Cov- 
erdale  was  the  sole  editor.  This  was  an  event  of  great  impor- 
tance, and  may  be  regarded,  in  a  certain  sense,  as  the  practical 
answer  to  the  prayer  of  Convocation  three  years  before.  Convo- 
cation, however,  I  regret  to  say,  was  by  no  means  satisfied 
with  the  answer,  as  very  soon  afterwards,  in  February,  1542, 
it  was  decided  by  this  House  that  the  Great  Bible  should  be 
revised  according  to  the  Bible  then  in  current  use,  or,  in  other 
words,  to  the  Vulgate.  Two  committees  were  appointed. 
The  Old  Testament  Committee  was  presided  over  by  the 
Archbishop  of  York ;  the  New  Testament  Committee  by  the 
Bishop  of  Durham.  The  matter  was  subsequently  referred  by  the 
King  to  the  Universities,  but  in  the  sequel  it  happily  fell  through. 
A  genera^tion  then  passed  away.  The  Great  Bible  had  meanwhile 
been  revised,  though  in  a  very  different  manner  to  what  the  Con- 
vocation of  1542  had  hoped  for  and  had  attempted.     It  had  now 


20  HISTORICAL    ACCOUNT    OF   THE    WORK 

passed,  by  the  process  of  a  revision,  performed  by  several  hands, 
into  the  Bishops'  Bible.  The  Genevan  version  had  also  been 
published,  and  was  obtaining  so  wide  a  circulation  that  in  1571 
Convocation  made  a  special  enactment  in  favor  of  what  it  deemed 
the  more  orthodox  volume — the  Bishops'  Bible.  Every  Bishop 
was  to  have  a  copy  in  liis  palace.  Cathedrals,  and,  as  far  as 
possible,  parish  churches,  were  to  provide  themselves  with  this 
last  authoritative  revision.  Somewhere  about  this  time  there  ap- 
pears to  have  been  some  thought  of  a  movement  in  Parliament, 
as  an  undated  paper  has  been  found  among  the  archives  of  the 
House  of  Lords,  containing  the  sketch  of  a  bill  for  '  reducing 
diversities  of  Bibles  now  extant  in  the  English  tongue  to  one 
settled  vulgar  translated  from  the  original.'  Another  generation 
then  passed  away,  during  the  whole  of  which  three  versions  were  in 
practically  competitive  circulation — the  Great  Bible,  the  Genevan 
version,  and  the  Bishops'  Bible.  In  Convocation  there  seems  to 
have  been  some  little  reaction  in  favor  of  the  Great  Bible,  for  in 
May,  1604,  Canon  80  was  passed,  by  which  it  was  provided  that 
every  church-warden  was  to  provide  for  each  parish  a  Bible  '  am- 
plissimi  voluminis,'  or,  as  it  would  certainly  seem  to  imply,  the 
Great  Bible  of  more  than  sixty  years  before.  But  a  great  and 
signal  change  was  now  very  near  at  hand.  In  February  of  the 
same  year  (1604)  a  passing  remark  of  Dr.  Reynolds,  at  the  Hamp- 
ton Court  Conference,  led  the  King  seriously  to  take  up  the  sub- 
ject of  a  revision  of  the  existing  translations,  and  before  the  con- 
ference broke  up  it  appeared  as  one  of  the  points  desired  by  the 
King,  and,  in  fact,  carried  at  his  instigation,  viz.,  'That  a  trans- 
lation be  made  of  the  whole  Bible  as  consonant  as  can  be  to  the 
original  Hebrew  and  Greek.'  This  was  the  fundamental  resolu- 
tion, and,  as  we  well  know,  by  the  action  of  the  King  and  some 
unknown  but  most  competent  advisers,  learned  men  were  called 
together,  and  the  great  work  which  we  familiarly  know  by  the 
name  of  the  Authorised  Version  was  set  forth  to  the  Church  and 
the  worhl  in  the  year  of  our  Lord  1611.  In  reference  to  this 
version  nothing  was  said  or  done  either  in  Convocation  or  Parlia- 
ment. This  revision  is  to  be  attributed  solely  to  the  King  and  to 
the  wise  and  learned  men  whom  he  was  providentially  able  to 
call  together  for  the  execution  of  this  great  and  time-honored 
work.  More  than  a  generation  then  passed  away,  during  which 
the  Authorised  Version  was  steadily  growing  in  public  favor  and 
vindicating  year  by  year  its  distinct  superiority  not  only  over  the 


OF    THE    AMERICAN    COMMITTEE    OF    REVISION.  21 

Bishops'  Bible,  but  over  the  popular  Genevan   Bible.  And  it  was, 
perhaps,  owing  to  this  last  fact  that  we  find  Dr.  Lightfoot  urging, 
in  a  sermon  preached  before  the  House  of  Commons  in  August, 
164:5,  the  desirableness  of  a  revision  of  the  Scriptures,  and  appar- 
ently with  some  effect ;  for,  in  1653,  a  bill  was  actually  introduced 
for  a  new  revision.    Some  preparatory  steps  were  taken ;  but  hap- 
pily the  Parliament — the  Long  Parliament — was  dissolved,   and 
the  plan  entirely  fell  through.     For  two  hundred  years  all  desire 
for  any  further  authoritative  revision  had  entirely  died  out.  There 
were  revised  portions  of  Holy  Scripture,  in  this  long  interval,  by 
individual  scholars,  but  nothing  that  in  any  degree  helped  forward 
the  present  movement.     At  the  end  of  this  long  period,  however, 
it  was  plain  that  the  desire  for  a  new  revision  had  revived,  and 
that  the  subject  was  beginning  to  take  its  place  among  the  lead- 
ing questions  of  the  day.     In  the  year  1856,  which  might  rightly 
be  characterized  as  the  germinal  year  of  the  present  movement, 
Canon  Selvvyn  (ever  a  true  and  warm  supporter  of  revision)  moved 
in   Convocation,    and   Mr.    Heywood   a   few   months   afterwards 
moved  in  Parliament,  for  the  appointment  of  a  Boyal  Commission 
to  consider  the  whole  question.     The  public  movements  failed ; 
but  a  private  movement  made  by  five  clergymen  (one  of  whom  is 
the  present  speaker,  and  another  my  Bight  Rev.  brother  the  Bishop 
of  Salisbury)  in  great  measure  succeeded.     The  publication  in  the 
following  year  (1857)  of  a  revised  version  of  the  Gospel  of  St. 
John  by  these    five  clergymen  was  generally  admitted  to  have 
established  these  two  positions — (1)  that  a  sober  and  conservative 
revision  of  the  Holy  Scriptures  might  in  due  time  very  hopefully 
be  undertaken ;   (2)   that  when  undertaken  it  would  be,  almost 
beyond   doubt,    on  the  principles  which  this  little  company  of 
scholars  had  gradually  and  experimentally  felt  out.     The  time, 
however,  was  not  then  ripe,  though  the  process  of  maturation 
had    commenced.     So   half   a   generation   passed    away.     Fresh 
critical  subsidies  were  accumulating ;  new  exegetical  works  were 
multiplying ;  and  at  last  the  time  was  ripe,  and  the  great  move 
ment  with  which  Convocation  has  been  so  intimately  connected 
began  in  February,  1870,  and  shortly  after  assumed  an  author- 
itative and  practical  form.     In  that  month,  as  your  lordships  well 
remember,  the  late  Bishop  of  Winchester  moved  in  this  House, 
and  the  present  speaker  seconded,  a  preliminary  resolution,  which 
was  accepted  by  both  Houses  practically  unanimously,  and  acted 
upon  in  little  more  than  four  months   afterwards.     An  executive 


22  HISTORICAL    ACCOUNT    OF    THE    WORK 

committee  was  formed  ;  some  forty  scholars  and  divines  outside 
Convocation  were  invited  to  take  part  in  the  work.  Two  Com- 
panies were  formed,  the  one  for  the  Old  Testament  and  the  other 
for  the  New  Testament,  and  both  at  once  addressed  themselves  to 
their  long  and  responsible  work.  Soon  afterwards  two  Commit- 
tees were  formed  in  America,  and  regular  and  systematic  com- 
munication established  between  the  scholars  on  this  side  and  the 
other  side  of  the  Atlantic.  The  New  Testament  Company  com- 
menced its  labors  on  June  22,  1870,  and  closed  them  on  Novem- 
ber 11,  1880,  and  the  result  of  those  labors  is  the  volume  which  I 
have  had  the  honor  and  responsibility  of  placing  upon  the  table 
of  this  venerable  House.  And  here  I  might,  not  improperly,  close 
this  present  address ;  yet,  if  I  rightly  interpret  my  present 
duty,  and  perhaps  also  the  wishes  and  desires  of  your  lordships, 
I  ought  not  to  do  so,  on  this  somewhat  memorable  occasion,  with- 
out saying  a  few  words  on  the  manner  in  which  the  task  com- 
mitted to  us  has  been  done,  and  also  a  few  words,  but  only  a  few 
words,  on  the  nature  and  characteristics  of  the  revision.  In  regard 
of  the  manner  in  which  the  work  of  revision  was  carried  on,  I 
may  remind  your  lordships  that  it  was  in  accordance  wdth  rules 
which  had  been  laid  down  at  the  commencement  of  the  work. 
They  were  framed  with  due  regard  to  modern  requirements  and 
ancient  precedents,  being  in  many  respects  identical  with  the 
rules  prescribed  for  the  revisers  of  1611,  and  the  rules  which  ap- 
pear to  have  been  observed  by  those  who  took  part  in  the  Bishops' 
Bible  fifty  years  before.  These  rules  were  constantly  tested,  and 
I  am  thankful  to  say  (for  I  Avas  in  some  measure  responsible  for 
them),  proved  efficient  and  sufficient  to  the  end.  These  rules  it 
may,  perhaps,  be  convenient  that  I  should  read  to  your  lordships, 
as  they  set  forth  in  a  succinct  form  the  course  which  was  to  be 
followed  by  the  Companies  in  the  prosecution  of  their  work : — (1) 
To  introduce  as  few  alterations  as  possible  into  the  text  of  the 
Authorised  Version  consistently  with  faithfulness.  (2)  To  limit,  as 
far  as  possible,  the  expression  of  such  alterations  to  the  language 
of  the  Authorised  and  earlier  English  versions.  (3)  Each  Company 
to  go  twice  over  the  portion  to  be  revised,  once  provisionally,  the 
second  time  finally,  and  on  principles  of  voting  as  hereinafter  is 
provided.  (4)  That  the  text  to  be  adopted  be  that  for  which  the 
evidence  is  decidedly  ])rcponderating ;  and  that  when  the  text  so 
adopted  differs  from  that  from  wliich  tlie  Authorised  Version  was 
made,  the  alteration  be  indicated  in  the  margin.     (5)  To  make  or 


OF   THE    AMERICAN    COMMITTEE    OF    EEVISIOJST.  23 

retain  no  change  in  the  text  on  the  second  and  final  revision  by 
each  Company  except  two-thirds  of  those  present  approve  of  the 
same,  but  on  the  first  revision  to  decide  by  simple  majorities.  (6) 
In  every  case  of  proposed  alteration  that  may  have  given  rise  to 
discussion,  to  defer  the  voting  thereupon  till  the  next  meeting, 
whensoever  the  same  shall  be  required  by  one-third  of  those  pre- 
sent at  the  meeting,  such  intended  vote  to  be  announced  in  the 
notice  for  the  next  meeting.  (7)  To  revise  the  headings  of  chap- 
ters, pages,  paragraphs,  italics  and  punctuation.  (8)  To  refer,  on 
the  part  of  each  Company,  when  considered  desirable,  to  divines, 
scholars  and  literary  men,  wdiether  at  home  or  abroad,  for  their 
opinions.  Of  these  rules,  one  only  was  found  to  be  superfluous — 
the  rule  which  prescribes  that,  if  required  by  one-third  of  the 
Company,  the  voting  might  be  deferred  on  any  difficult  and  de- 
bated question  till  the  following  day.  The  object  was  to  prevent 
any  lingering  heat  of  controversy  having  any  influence  on  the  final 
decision,  and  to  insure  a  perfectly  calm  and,  as  far  as  possible, 
unbiassed  decision.  The  rule,  however,  was  never  put  in  action. 
By  the  mercy  and  blessing  of  God,  no  occasion  ever  arose  which 
made  it  in  any  degree  necessary.  Amid  ceaseless  differences  of 
opinion  and  countless  divisions,  the  brotherly  feeling  and  harmony 
that  prevailed  among  us  remained  unimpaired  to  the  very  end, 
and  rendered  all  such  postponement  of  the  final  expression  of 
opinion  wholly  unnecessary.  All  the  rest  of  these  rules,  as  our 
preface  will  show  more  fully  in  detail,  were  very  carefully  observed. 
They  were  felt  by  us  to  present  three  broad  principles,  upon 
which  I  will  venture  to  make  a  few  observations,  as  tending  to 
illustrate  that  on  which  I  now  am  speaking — the  manner  in  which 
we  have  endeavored  to  execute  our  work.  In  the  first  place,  we 
have  felt  that  what  was  required  of  us,  not  only  in  the  criticism 
and  translation,  but  in  all  the  details  of  the  revision,  was  to  ex- 
press a  corporate  and  collective  judgment.  It  is  this  which  dis- 
tinguishes our  work  from  every  other  revision  that  has  preceded 
it.  It  has  been  the  work  of  a  large  body  of  men  sitting  together, 
and  arriviiig  at  their  results  after  full  corporate  discussion.  This, 
as  we  know,  was  not  the  case  with  the  Bisliops'  Bible.  Our  latest 
historian  of  the  English  versions  of  the  Bible  (Dr.  Eadie)  reminds 
us  not  only  that  there  Avas  no  consultation  among  the  revisers, 
but  even  no  final  supervision.  We  have  no  reason  for  thinking 
that  it  was  otherwise  with  the  Genevan  Bible,  which,  though  the 
work  of  persons  dwelling  for  a  time  in  the  same  city,  does  not 


24  HISTOEICAL    ACCOUNT    OF   THE    WORK 

present  any  traces  of  having  been  executed  or  discussed  in  com- 
mon. The  first  edition,  indeed,  of  the  Kew  Testament  is  known 
to  have  been  the  work  of  a  single  hand.  Even  in  our  Authorised 
Version  the  work  of  revision  was  carried  on,  in  the  case  of  the 
New  Testament,  by  two  separate  companies,  that  only  communi- 
cated their  results  to  each  other,  but  never  discussed  them  in 
common.  In  the  final  supervision,  which,  however,  only  lasted 
nine  months  for  the  whole  Bible,  the  discussion  was  probably  cor- 
porate, but  it  was  only  by  a  small  number,  and,  from  the  very 
nature  of  the  case,  was  jDiobably  more  of  a  merely  harmonizing 
nature  than  a  revision  in  the  true  sense  of  the  word.  In  our  case 
it  has  been  utterly  different.  Revision  and  supervision  have  been 
carried  through  by  the  whole  Company.  Every  detail  has  been 
submitted  to  it ;  every  decision  has  emanated  from  it ;  every  judg- 
ment rests  solely  upon  its  authority.  The  volume  now  lying  upon 
your  lordships'  table  is  the  result,  in  every  part  and  portion,  of 
united  and  corporate  discussion.  And  if  this  was  our  first  prin- 
ciple, not  less  strictly  observed  was  our  second  principle,  viz.,  to 
express  that  corporate  judgment  with  precision  and  distinctness. 
I  do  not  think  there  will  be  found  in  the  whole  volume  the  faintest 
trace  of  a  rendering  which  would  adjust  itself  to  one  or  other  of 
two  competing  views  of  the  meaning  of  the  original  Greek.  Our 
rule  was  invariably  to  put  in  the  text  the  judgment  of  the  majority, 
and  that  of  the  minority  in  the  margin,  that  majority  and  minority 
being  of  the  nature  defined  by  the  rules.  There  is  thus  nowhere 
any  uncertain  sound.  Nor  is  there  any  ground  whatever  for  sup- 
posing, as  is  sometimes  the  case  in  the  Authorised  Version,  that 
the  margin  is  the  more  correct  rendering,  which,  for  some  reason 
or  other,  it  was  not  deemed  desirable  to  place  in  the  text.  How- 
ever it  may  be  with  the  Authorised  Version,  it  is  certainly 
not  so  wdth  the  Revised.  The  text  expresses  the  rendering  or 
decision  of  the  majority  of  the  Company — that  which  it  deliber- 
ately preferred ;  the  margin  expresses  the  view  of  the  minority, 
and  is  to  be  so  regarded  by  the  reader.  Our  third  principle  was 
not  only  to  express  our  corporate  judgment  with  clearness,  but  to 
do  so  only  after  the  fullest  and  most  varied  consideration.  There 
is  not  a  hastily  arrived  at  judgment  to  be  found  in  any  page  of 
the  Revised  Version.  No  precipitate  decision  has  any  place  what- 
ever in  the  results  that  are  now  submitted  to  you.  When  I  men- 
tion that  the  work  has  actually  gone  through  seven  revisions  I 
feel  that  I  am  justified  in  making  the  statement  which  I  have  just 


OF    THE    AMERICAN    COMMITTEE    OF    REVISION.  25 

made  to  your  lordsliips  in  regard  to  the  decisions  arrived  at  in  this 
volume.  Yes,  my  lords,  seven  revisions,  all  more  or  less  thorough 
and  complete.  First,  the  whole  of  the  version  committed  to  the 
Company  was  revised  by  it,  and  then  transmitted  to  America.  It 
was  then  reviewed  by  the  American  Committee,  and  returned 
back  again  to  England.  It  then  underwent,  in  accordance  with 
the  rules,  a  second  revision  in  England,  and  was  again  transmitted 
to  America.  After  these  four  revisions  it  yet  underwent  a  fifth 
revision  in  England,  mainly  with  a  view  of  removing  any  hardness 
of  diction,  or  of  remedying  any  rhythmical  defects  w^liich  might 
have  been  introduced  through  the  various  changes  which  had 
been  imported  in  the  course  of  this  fourfold  revision.  There  was 
yet  a  sixth  and  most  important  revision  in  the  form  of  a  harmo- 
nizing review  of  the  whole,  thus  far,  completed  work.  A  Greek 
concordance  of  the  New  Testament  was  divided  into  fourteen 
parts.  Of  these,  twelve  of  the  members  most  constant  in  their 
attendance  each  took  a  part  (the  chairman  taking  two),  and  made 
themselves  individually  responsible  for  a  close  examination  of  all 
the  renderings  of  the  words,  each  in  the  portion  allotted  to  them. 
All  varieties  of  rendering  were  thus  brought  up  before  the  Com- 
pany, and  wheresoever  necessary  the  judgment  of  the  collective 
body  formally  taken  upon  them.  Thus  there  was  a  sixth  revision. 
And  even,  in  a  certain  sense,  a  seventh  ;  for  it  so  happened  that 
one  of  the  two  portions  taken  by  the  chairman  contained  the 
article  and  the  relative  pronouns.  This  involved  on  the  part  of 
the  chairman  a  careful  reading  through,  line  by  line,  of  the  whole 
volume.  This  reading  revealed  several  inconsistencies  in  the  use 
of  the  English  relative  that  had  escaped  notice,  and  also  disclosed 
a  few  slight  inconsistencies  in  other  words  or  expressions  which 
had  in  some  way  or  other  eluded  the  vigilance  of  the  revisers. 
When  I  add  to  this  that  throughout  all  this  lengthened  process 
the  attendance  was  most  remarkable  in  regard  to  numbers  and 
punctuality- — the  average  attendance  during  the  whole  ten  and  a 
half  years  being  as  high  as  sixteen  out  of  twenty-four — I  think  I 
may  be  justified  when  I  say  that  the  third  principle  at  which  we 
aimed — the  expression  of  opinions  only  after  the  fullest  and  most 
varied  consideration — was  thoroughly  and  faithfully  observed.  I 
now  pass,  in  the  last  place,  to  a  few  remarks  on  the  nature  and 
characteristics  of  the  version  itself,  which  is  now  lying  on  our 
table.  Much  I  need  not  say,  as  the  Preface  which  is  prefixed  to 
the  volume  really  tells  this  with  a  fulness  and  a  detail  that  leave 


26  HISTORICAL    ACCOUNT    OF   THE    WORK 

little  to  be  added  on  the  present  occasion.  Perhaps,  as  before,  it 
may  be  best  for  me  to  gather  np  my  remarks  into  the  form  of  two 
or  three  general  comments.  Permit  me,  then,  to  sa}'  that  these 
three  characteristics  will  certainly  be  found  on  every  page  of  the 
Kevised  Version — thoroughness,  loyalty  to  the  Authorised  Ver- 
sion, and  due  recognition  of  the  best  judgments  of  antiquity.  Our 
version  is  certainly  thorough — thorough  both  in  regard  of  the  text 
and  the  rendering.  That  thoroughness,  as  your  lordships  will 
remember  from  the  rules  which  I  but  recently  read  to  you,  was 
to  be  regulated  by  the  principle  of  faithfulness  in  regard  of 
the  translation  and  a  due  regard  to  decidedly  preponderating 
evidence  in  the  case  of  the  Greek  text  which  we  regai'ded  as  the 
basis  of  our  rendering.  Faithfulness  and  decidedly  preponder- 
ating evidence  are,  of  course,  both  of  them  expressions  which 
admit  of  a  great  variety  of  interpretations,  and  in  a  numerous 
body  like  that  of  the  New  Testament  Company,  were  certain  to 
receive  them.  Without  troubling  your  lordships  with  any  enu- 
meration of  these  varyiug  shades  of  opinion,  it  maybe  sufficient  to 
mention,  as  the  general  result,  that  the  revision  both  of  the  Greek 
text  and  of  the  Authorised  translation  has  been  thorough  and  up 
to  a  full  standard  of  correction.  And  it  would  have  been  a  great 
misfortune  if  it  had  been  otherwise.  A  timid  revision  that  had 
not  the  nerve  to  aim  at  comparative  finality,  but  was  simply  sug- 
gestive of  a  renewal  of  the  process  when  the  public  mind  might 
be  judged  to  be  again  ready  for  it,  would  have  had  a  \evj  un- 
settling effect,  and  really  would  have  frustrated  the  ver}'  progress 
that  it  contemplated  ;  for  such  a  kind  of  revision  would  be  used 
as  a  standing  argument  against  any  revision  at  all.  Moreover,  to 
modify  a  high  standard,  in  some  subsequent  review,  is  a  process 
comparatively  easy ;  but  to  elevate  a  lower  and  tentative  standard, 
in  the  case  of  a  translation  of  the  New  Testament,  would  be 
found,  if  attempted,  a  work  of  such  peculiar  difficulty  that  it 
would  be  very  speedily  abandoned.  No  such  misfortune  has  hap- 
pened to  the  Revised  Version.  It  represents  as  full  a  measure 
of  correction  as  is  required  by  faithfulness,  fairly  estimated,  but 
nothing  beyond  it.  The  minor  changes  by  which  it  is  marked 
are  certainly  numerous,  but  all  have  only  one  common  object — 
the  setting  forth  with  greater  clearness,  force,  and  freshness  the 
language  and  teaching  of  the  inspired  original.  Eleven  years  ago 
I  alarmed  your  lordships  by  the  estimate  which  I  then  formed  of 
the  amount  of  change  that  would  be  needed ;  and,  I  remember,  I 


OF   THE    AMERICAN    COMMITTEE    OF    EEVISION.  27 

led  my  brother  of  Salisbury  to  say  that  my  words  would  frighten 
people  from  one  end  of  the  land  to  the  other.  If  the  estimate 
was  deemed  to  be  alarming,  I  fear  I  may  alarm  your  lordsliips 
still  more  when  I  state  the  actual  results  and  compare  them  with 
what  was  then  only  anticipated.  I  comfort  myself,  however,  with 
the  thought  that  when  you  go  to  the  revision  itself  these  alarms 
will  speedily  be  dissipated.  What  I  stated  as  the  very  lowest 
estimate  was  six  changes  for  every  five  verses,  one  of  these  six 
changes  being  for  critical  and  textual  reasons.  What  has  actually 
taken  place  is  an  average  for  the  Gospels  of  between  eight  and 
nine  changes  in  every  five  verses — somewhere  about  one  and  a 
half,  *or  three  in  every  ten  verses,  being  for  critical  chauges.  As 
might  be  expected,  the  average  for  the  Epistles  is  still  higher.  It 
appears  to  amount  to  about  fifteen  changes  for  every  five  verses — 
one  and  a  half  as  before  being  due  to  critical  changes.  I  have 
formed  this  calculation  on  a  rigidly  accurate  examiuation  of  the 
revised  version  of  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  and  the  General 
Epistle  of  St.  James,  two  connected  portions  of  Holy  Scripture 
containing  each  about  the  same  number  of  verses.  Yet,  with  all  this 
thoroughness  of  revision  and  numerically  high  standard  of  cor- 
rection, the  effect  to  the  general  hearer  or  reader  will  really  hardly 
be  perceptible.  This  is  due  to  the  second  characteristic  of  our 
version,  its  persistent  loyalty  to  the  Authorised  translation.  To 
any  candid  reader  nothing  will  be  more  patent  than  this  through- 
out the  whole  volume.  Our  words  in  the  Preface  will  show  the 
great  reverence  that  we  have  ever  felt  for  that  venerable  version, 
and  our  practice  on  every  page  will  show  how,  even  when  words 
may  have  been  changed,  our  reverence  has  shown  itself  in  such  a 
careful  assimilation  to  the  tone  and  rhythm  of  that  marvellous 
translation  that  the  actual  amount  of  change  will  scarcely  ever  be 
felt  or  recognized.  Sometimes  this  has  been  effected  by  the 
choice  of  a  word  of  the  same  rhythmic  quality  as  that  which  is 
displaced ;  sometimes  by  a  fortunate  inversion ;  sometimes  by 
the  reproduction  of  a  familiar  and  idiomatic  turn  ;  sometimes  by 
the  preservation  of  the  cadence  even  when  more  than  one  of  the 
words  which  had  originally  helped  to  make  it  up  had  become 
modified  or  changed.  In  a  word,  our  care  throughout  has  been, 
while  faithfully  carrying  out  revision  Avheresoever  it  might  seem 
needed,  to  make  the  new  work  and  the  old  so  blend  together  that 
the  venerable  aspect  of  the  Authorised  Version  might  never  be 
lost,  and  its  fair  proportions  never  sacrificed  to  the  rigidity  of  a 


28  HISTORICAL    ACCOUIS^'P    OF    THE    WORK 

merely  pedantic  accuracy.  The  third  characteristic  of  the  ver- 
sion— due  recognition  of  the  best  judgments  of  antiquit}- — though 
not  equally  patent,  will,  I  hope  and  believe,  rarely  be  looked  for 
in  vain.  In  all  more  difficult  passages  we  have  ever  given 
especial  heed  to  the  great  early  versions,  and  to  the  voice,  wher- 
ever it  could  be  heard  in  the  same  language  as  that  which  we 
were  translating,  of  primitive  and  patristic  antiquity.  In  many 
of  those  passages,  perhaps,  on  which  hereafter  we  may  be  most 
severely  criticised — as,  for  instance,  in  the  '  deliver  us  from  the 
Evil  One '  of  the  Lord's  Praj^er^ — it  will  be  found  that  we  are  but 
reproducing  that  which  had  always  been  the  interpretation  of  the 
best  and  earliest  writers  of  tlio  Greek-speaking  Primitive  Church. 
We  have  thus  sought  to  tread  the  old  paths  as  well  as  the  new, 
and,  wdiile  never  neglecting  modern  scholarship,  have  never  re- 
versed old  interpretations  without  such  a  clear  amount  of  con- 
textual or  linguistic  authority  as  rendered  such  a  reversal  a  matter 
of  distinct  and  indisputable  faithfulness.  But,  my  lords,  I  must 
detain  j'ou  no  longer.  Such,  in  general  outline,  is  the  Revision 
which  I  now  have  the  honor  of  placing  before  you.  Whatever 
may  be  its  faults  and  shortcomings,  it  has  been  done  faithfully, 
and  it  has  been  done  prayerfully.  Its  pages  bear  the  results  of 
long-continued  and  arduous  labors  ;  but  those  labors  Avould  have 
been  as  nothing  if  they  had  not  been  hallowed  and  quickened  by 
prayer.  Such  is  this  revision  of  1881 ;  not  unworth}^  I  trust  and 
believe,  to  take  its  place  among  the  great  English  versions  of  the 
past;  not  also  without  the  hoj^e  of  holding  a  place  among  them 
of  honor,  and,  perhaps,  even  of  pre-eminence.  But  those  things 
belong  to  the  future.  For  the  present,  it  is  enough  that  I  com- 
mend this  volume  to  the  favorable  consideration  of  your  lordships, 
and  ask  for  it  your  fatherly  prayers." 

The  Archbishop,  on  behalf  of  the  House,  recorded  thanks  to 
those  members  of  the  Bevision  Committee  who  were  not  ap- 
pointed by  Convocation,  and  his  Grace  also  expressed  his  opinion 
that  the  House  was  very  fortunate  in  having  had  the  advantage 
of  the  services  of  a  scholar  such  as  the  Bisliop  of  Gloucester  and 
Bristol  to  take  part  on  behalf  of  the  House  in  tliis   revision. 

The  Bishop  of  London  expressed  his  hope  that  the  position 
this  Revised  Version  would  take  would  not  be  misunderstood. 
He  feared  that  this  position  had  been  misunderstood.  The  Re- 
vised Version  had  been  spoken  of  as  if  it  would  at  once  take  the 


OF    THE    AMERICAN    COMMITTEE    OF    RE  VISION.  29 

place  of  the  Authorised  Version.  He  begged  to  remind  the  House 
that  no  one  could  at  present  use  this  Revised  Version.  When 
the  whole  work  was  completed  it  would  go  out  to  the  public  and 
would  be  before  the  Church  for  consideration;  it  might  be  years 
before  the  proposed  alterations  from  the  Authorised  Version  had 
so  approved  themselves  to  the  Church — both  clergy  and  laity-— 
that  steps  could  be  taken  to  give  authority  for  the  use  of  the  Re- 
vised Version.  However,  it  must  be  understood  that  the  Revised 
Version  could  not  now  be  used  in  the  churches.  He  begged  to 
express  the  hope  that  there  might  not  be,  for  the  next  two  or 
three  years,  frequent  speaking  and  discussion  by  young  clergy- 
men, especially  by  those  who  most  probably  could  not  construe 
the  original,  on  the  proposed  alterations  set  forth.  A  great  deal 
of  patient  study  ought  to  precede  any  attempt  at  criticism  of  the 
proposed  alterations,  and  clergymen — young  clergymen  especially 
—who  had  little  knowledge  of  the  original,  should  be  careful  not 
too  readily  to  express  an  opinion  as  to  the  superiority  of  the  one 
version  over  the  other.  The  real  purpose  and  value  of  the  re- 
vision was  that  it  laid  before  the  Church  and  the  laity  alike  the 
opinions  of  ripe  scholars  and  of  the  ancient  Church,  and  the 
result  was  an  exceedingly  valuable  one,  upon  which,  however,  no 
opinion  could  be  given  until  after  full  study  and  with  adequate 
knowledge.  The  House  would  be  thankful  for  the  work  which, 
under  the  blessing  of  God,  had  thus  been  carried  out — a  work, 
however,  which  did  not  supersede  that  version  of  the  Scriptures 
which  all  English-speaking  Christians  had  learnt  to  esteem  and  love. 


ORGANIZATION  OF  THE  AMERICAN  COMMITTEE. 

The  first  steps  towards  the  formation  of  an  American  Commit- 
tee of  Revision  were  taken  almost  immediately  after  the  oi-ganiza- 
tion  of  the  English  Companies.  As  stated  in  the  "  Historical  Ex- 
position" (see  page  9  above),  the  first  meeting  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment Company  in  England  was  held  on  the  22d  of  June,  1870. 
On  the  7th  of  July  next  following,  the  two  Houses  of  Convocation 
voted  "to  invite  the  co-operation  of  some  American  divines,"  and 
to  Bishop  Wilberforce  and  Dean  Stanley  was  assigned  soon  after- 
wards the  duty  of  holding  such  communications  with  America  as 
might  be  necessary  for  the  accomplishment  of  the  desired  result. 


30  HISTORICAL    ACCOUNT    OF   THE    WORK 

As  the  Rev.  Dr.  Angus  was  at  that  time  intending  to  visit  the 
United  States,  in  connection  with  a  proposed  meeting  of  the 
Evangelical  Alliance  in  the  City  of  New  York,  it  was  deemed  ex- 
pedient to  authorize  him  to  open  correspondence  with  the  Rev. 
Dr.  Scliaff,  and  some  other  scholars,  while  in  this  country.  In  this 
way  it  was  thought  that  the  matter  might  be  most  easily  explained 
in  its  details,  and  an  interchange  of  views  might  be  held  in  the 
most  satisfactory  way.  Accordingl}^  Bishop  Ellicott,  who  had 
been  made  chairman  of  the  English  New  Testament  Company,  ad- 
dressed to  Dr.  Angus  in  the  name  of  that  company,  one  of  the  two 
following  letters  which  might  serve  to  introduce  the  subject  to 
scholars  here,  and  Dr.  Angus  himself  prepared  the  other,  which 
was  sent  to  a  few  of  those  w^liose  views  and  co-operation  were 
especially  desired."* 

[Letter  of  Bisbop  Ellicott  to  Rev.  Dr.  Angus.] 

Portland  Place,  London,  July  20  [1870]. 
Dear  Dr.  Angus  : 

As  you  do  me  the  favor  of  asking  me,  I  take  the  responsibility, 
as  acting  chairman  of  the  New  Testament  Company  of  the  re- 
vision body,  herewith  to  commend  you  as  one  of  our  most  trusty 
helpers  to  the  scholars  in  the  United  States  who  may  be  interested 
in  the  undertaking.  Perhaps  you  will  kindly  explain  to  them 
how  we  work,  viz.,  round  a  common  table,  and  how  it  is  thus  diffi- 
cult for  us  to  incorporate  our  brethren  across  the  water.  It  will, 
however,  be  very  easy  for  us  to  transmit  our  work  in  its  provi- 
sional state  to  an  authorised  committee  in  the  United  States,  and 
pay  all  attention  to  the  corrections  they  may  suggest  and  the  ob- 
servations they  may  be  pleased  to  offer.  We  shall  be  very  inter- 
ested in  hearing  when  you  come  back  how  you  may  have  arranged. 

Pray  give  my  respectful  compliments  to  anj^  scholars  with  whom 
you  may  confer,  and  believe  me  very  sincerely, 

Yours, 

C.  J,  Gloucester  and  Bristol. 

[Bishop  Ellicott,  Chairman  of  the  N.  T.  Company. 1 


[*  These  and  all  other  letters  and  documents  embodied  in  this  volume,  are  pub- 
lishei  with  the  consent  of  the  British  Revisers  and  the  University  Presses.] 


OF   THE    AMERICAN    COMMITTEE    OF    REVISION.  31 

[Letter  of  Dr.  Angus  to  American  Scholars.— Sent  out  in  August,  1870.] 

My  Deae  Sie  : 

I  am  not  sure  whetlier  you  have  seen  the  enclosed  plan  of 
Bible  revision  [the  rules,  etc.,  of  the  English  Company].  The 
method  adopted  of  having  the  work  done  by  each  Company  to- 
gether makes  it  impracticable  to  ask  the  co-operation  of  brethren 
in  America  at  the  initial  stage  of  their  proceeding :  but  there  is  a 
strong  and  general  feeling  among  the  revisers  that  we  should  get 
their  co-operation  to  the  extent  at  least  of  securing  their  criti- 
cisms and  suggestions  before  our  revision  is  finally  published. 
Could  you  help  in  such  a  work  by  looking  over  the  revision  as  we 
prepare  it,  and  giving  suggestions  ?  If  a  committee  of  a  dozen  or 
eighteen  were  formed  in  the  States,  we  could  send  the  copy  of 
the  revise  to  each,  and  they  might  meet  and  agree  on  suggestions. 
If  meetings  are  impracticable,  we  might  still  obtain  individual 
judgments ;  but  the  plan  of  a  united  judgment  has  obvious  advan- 
tages. The  expense  of  such  meetings  would  not  be  great :  and 
probably  it  might  be  met  by  friends  interested  in  our  work.  In 
England  the  revisers  give  their  time  and  labor ;  and  we  propose 
to  meet  the  expenses  of  printing  and  travehiog  by  an  appeal  to 
the  English  public.  Expenses  in  America  might  be  met  in  a  like 
way ;  or  we  might  add  these  expenses  to  ours,  and  meet  them  all 
out  of  a  common  fund.  I  had  hoped  to  confer  with  you  on  this 
subject  during  the  N.  Y.  Alliance  meetings.  They,  however,  are 
postponed,  and  I  must  therefore  trust  largely  to  correspondence. 
Bishop  EUicott  (our  acting  chairman)  gives  me  an  introduction 
and  asks  me  to  obtain  such  help  as  I  am  now  writing  about. 

Dr.  Schaff  and  Dr.  Conant  agree  to  help  either  individually  or 
in  committee.  When  you  have  thought  the  matter  over,  favor  me 
with  a  reply  addressed  to  the  Alliance  Rooms,  Bible  House,  New 

York. 

Yours  very  sincerely, 

Joseph  Angus. 

Dr.  Angus  held  communication  in  person  and  by  letter  wnth  Dr. 
Schaff  while  in  America,  the  result  of  which  was  the  selection  of 
certain  gentlemen  who  were  fitted  for  the  work,  and  were  likely  to 
be  regarded  as  authorities  in  Biblical  learning  by  the  American 
public,  and  the  submission  of  their  names  to  Bishop  Ellicott  and 
Dean  Stanley  as  representing  the  English  body.  A  few  months 
later.  Dean  Stanley  made  the  first  formal  communication  by  letter, 


32  HISTORICAL    ACCOUNT    OF   THE    WORK 

in  discharge  of  the  duty  assigned  to  liim  after  the  vote  of  Convoca- 
tion in  July,  1870.  On  the  13th  of  January,  1871,  he  wrote  to 
Dr.  Schaff  as  follows  : 

Deanery,  Westminster  Abbey,  ) 
London,  Jan.  13, 1871.      j" 
My  Dear  Sir  : 

I  have  been  in  commuuication  with  Dr.  Angus  on  the  subject 
of  the  revision  of  the  Authorised  Version  of  the  Bible,  now  set  on 
foot  by  two  Companies  of  English,  Scottish,  and  Irish  scholars 
appointed  under  the  authority  of  the  Committee  of  the  Convoca- 
tion of  the  Province  of  Canterbury. 

By  that  Committee,  and  in  pursuance  of  a  vote  of  the  Lower 
House  of  Convocation,  the  Bishop  of  Winchester  and  myself  were 
requested  to  ask  the  friendly  co-operation  of  some  divines  from 
the  United  States  of  America  in  a  work  that,  it  was  felt,  concerned 
that  vast  part  of  the  English-speaking  races  of  the  world  as  nearly 
as  ourselves.  I  find  that  the  Bishop  of  AVinchester  has  already 
communicated  on  the  subject  with  Bishop  Potter,  with  the  view 
of  procuring  the  assistance  of  such  scholars  as  the  Protestant 
Episcopal  Church  of  America  may  furnish ;  and  I,  therefore, 
undertake  the  charge  of  addressing  myself  to  you,  as  having  been 
the  centre,  as  I  understand,  of  the  communications  of  the  non- 
Episcopalian  churches  with  Dr.  Angus  during  his  recent  visit. 
May  I  ask  you,  in  consideration  of  the  distance  of  space  and  the 
length  of  time  which  would  be  involved  in  repeated  correspond- 
ence with  each  member,  to  enter  into  such  negotiations  as  you 
may  deem  advisable  with  the  scholars  of  these  churches  ? 

It  will,  of  course,  be  readily  understood  that  the  object  of 
the  Committee  of  Convocation  and  of  the  revising  Companies  is 
to  procure  the  assistance  of  which  I  speak  purely  on  the  ground 
of  scholastic  and  Biblical  qualifications — the  assistance,  as  the 
vote  of  Convocation  expressed  it,  "  of  any  eminent  for  scholar- 
ship, to  whatever  nation  or  religious  body  they  may  belong." 
With  this  view  I  have  consulted  with  Dr.  Angus  and  others,  and 
venture  to  submit  a  list  of  such  eminent  persons  as  have  occurred 
to  us  as  falling  Avithin  the  above  description.  You  will,  perhaps, 
have  no  difficulty  in  arranging  with  them,  and,  also  (if  you  think 
fit)  with  Bishop  Potter,  representing  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church,  and  to  whom  I  have  not  written,  as  the  Bishop  will 
understand,  only  because  he  has  already  received  a  communication 
from  ray  superior  in  rank,  the  Bishop  of  Winchester. 


OF   THE    AMERICAlSr    COMMITTEE    OF   EEVISION.  33 

The  details  of  the  mode  of  co-operation  will  easily  suggest 
themselves  :  on  them  I  need  not  at  present  enter,  but  will  con- 
clude with  the  hope  that  the  joint  and  cordial  co-operation  in  this 
great  and  holy  work  may  add  another  link  to  the  friendly  inter- 
course and  communion  between  English  Christendom  and  that 
powerful  and  ever-increasing  offspring  that  it  has  produced  be- 
yond the  Atlantic. 

Yours  very  faithfully, 

A.  P.  Stanley. 

Bishop  Wilberforce  had,  somewhat  earlier,  written  to  Bishop 
Potter,  of  New  York,  asking  the  co-operation  of  the  divines  of  the 
Episcopal  Church  in  this  country.  But  as  the  General  Conven- 
tion of  the  Church  did  not  meet  until  the  following  autumn,  the 
subject  could  not  be  formally  brought  to  the  notice  of  the  House 
of  Bishops  before  that  time.  Under  date  of  August  7, 1871,  Bishop 
Wilberforce  again  addressed  Bishop  Potter  in  a  letter  which  waa 
submitted  by  the  latter  to  the  House  of  Bishops,  and  which  is 
here  inserted,  together  with  the  minute  adopted  by  the  House 
with  regard  to  the  suggestions  contained  in  it. 

[Letter  of  Bishop  Wilberforce,  of  Winchester,  to  Bishop  Potter  of  New  York.] 

(Copied  from  the  "  Journal  and  Proceedings  of  the  Bishops,  Clergy  and  Laity  of 
the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church,"  1873,  pp.  615-616.) 

BusBRiDGE  Hall,  Godalming,  Aug.  7, 1871. 

Eight  Eeverend  Brother  : 

As  the  time  of  your  General  Convention  approaches,  it  seems 
to  me  due  to  my  high  respect  and  brotherly  affection  for  your 
venerable  body  that  I  should,  as  Chairman  of  the  Committee  of 
the  Convocation  of  Canterbury,  which  is  charged  with  the  duty  of 
preparing  a  revised  text  of  our  Authorised  Version  of  the  Sacred 
Scriptures,  communicate  formally  to  you  what  has  been  done,  is 
doing,  and  is  intended,  touching  an  enterprise  which  must,  I 
think,  deeply  interest  all  the  English-speaking  branches  of  the 
Church  of  Christ,  and,  very  especially,  our  beloved  sister  commun- 
ion in  America.  The  purpose  for  which  the  Committee  was  ap- 
pointed was  this  : — not  to  make  a  new  translation,  but  to  exhibit, 
in  a  revised  version  of  the  existing  translations,  any  corrections 
which,  either  the  discovery  of  new  manuscripts  and  versions  or 


34  HISTORICAL    ACCOUNT    OF   THE    WORK 

the  advance  of  scholarship,  allowed  the  Committee  to  recommend. 
It  was  our  universal  belief  that  these  corrections,  though  impor- 
tant as  to  technical  accuracy,  would  affect  no  doctrine,  and  add  to 
instead  of  diminishing  the  authority  of  the  present  version.     We 
felt  that  there  Avas  danger  in  leaving  suspicion  free  to  exaggerate 
according  to  her  wont,  small  defects,  and  swell  them  to  dimensions 
which  might  weaken  the  authority  of  the  existing  version.     The 
Committee  liaviug  been  appointed  with  power  to  seek  aliimde  the 
assistance  of  experts  qualified  by  classical  and  biblical  learning  for 
the  task,  has  formed,  out  of  itself  and  such  associated  workmen, 
two  companies  :  one  of  which  is  proceeding  with  a  proposed  revi- 
sion of  the  Old,  and  the  other  of  the  New  Testament.     From  the 
first,  our  Convocation   desired  the  aid  of  your  body,  and  I  have 
myself  made  various  communications  from  it  to  individual  mem- 
bers of  your  Episcopate.     The  approaching  session  of  your  Gen- 
eral Convention  gives  me  the  opportunity  of  a  more  formal  com- 
munication, which  I  now  make  to  you  as  the  Presiding  Bishop, 
requesting  you  to  bring  the  matter,  in  such  a  way  as  you  deem 
meet,  before  the   General   Convention.     As  our  work   has  pro- 
ceeded, it  has  appeared  impossible  for  us  to  obtain  from  you  in 
the  progress  of  our  labors  that  aid  to  which  we  still  look  forward 
at  their  close.     "When   the  work  of  the  Companies  is  finished,  it 
will  be  the  duty  of  the  Committee  of  the  Convocation  in  its  sepa- 
rate unity  to  revise  the  work  done,  and  either  to  reject  it,  or  to  lay 
it,  with  or  without  alterations,  before  the  Convocation  of  Canter- 
bury.   That  body  will  then  judge  for  itself  of  the  merit  or  demerit 
of  what  its  Committee  so  presents  to  it.     Should  the  Convocation 
judge  it  so  far  successful,  it  would  authorise  such  other  steps  as  it 
may  deem  fit.     One  of  these,  I  have  Httle  doubt,  would  be  to  sub- 
mit the  tentative  revisions  to  the  other  Enghsh-speaking  branches 
of  the  Church,  and  should  your  Convention  encourage  our  doing 
so,  pre-eminently  to  you.     No  such  important  change  as  any  alter- 
ation in  the  Authorised  Version  of  the  Sacred  Scriptures  could 
be  carried  out  without  allowing  full  time  for  all  such  judgments 
as  that  of  your  branch  of  the  Church  to  be  formed  and  expressed  ; 
nor  until  the  revised  version  had  received  the  sanction  of  general 
approbation  could  it,  in  any  sense,  be  authorised  amongst  our- 
selves. 

Commending  this  important  matter  to  your  care,  and  earnestly 
seeking  your  prayers  for  the  due  fulfilment  of  the  work  in  hand, 
through  the  heavenly  assistance  of  God  the  Holy  Ghost,  for  the 


OF    THE    AMERICAlSr    COMMITTEE    OF    EEVISTON.  35 

glory  of  the  eternal  and  ever-blessed  Trinity,  and  the  edification  of 
the  Church  of  Christ,  I  remain,  right  reverend  and  dear  brother, 
Yours  in  the  bonds  of  the  common  faith, 

(Signed)  Samuel  Wintonensis. 

The  Right  Rev.  the  Presidikg  Bishop  of  the  Church  in  America. 

[Action  of  the  House  of  Bishops  on  the  preceding  letter.] 
(From  the  "Journal,"  etc.,  pp.  262-353.) 

A  communication  from  the  Right  Rev.  the  Lord  Bishop  of 
Winchester,  Chairman  of  the  Committee  of  the  Convocation  of 
Canterbury  on  the  Revision  of  the  Authorized  Version  of  the 
Holy  Scriptures,  to  the  Presiding  Bishop,  was  read  by  the  Sec- 
retary, 

On  motion  of  the  Bishop  of  New  York  it  was 

Resolved,  That  this  communication  be  laid  on  the  table,  and 
printed  for  the  use  of  the  House  (p.  262). 

The  Bishop  of  New  York  offered  the  following  resolution : 

Resolved,  That  the  Right  Rev.  the  Presiding  Bishop  be  and  is 
hereby  requested  to  return  to  the  Right  Rev.  the  Lord  Bishop  of 
Winchester  a  courteous  and  brotherly  acknowledgment  of  his 
communication  relating  to  a  revision  of  the  English  of  the  Holy 
Scriptures,  stating  that  this  House,  having  had  no  part  in  origi- 
nating or  organizing  the  said  work  of  revision,  is  not  at  present 
in  a  condition  to  deliver  any  judgment  respecting  it,  and  at  the 
same  time  expressing  the  disposition  of  this  House  to  consider 
with  candor  the  work  undertaken  by  the  Convocation  of  Canter- 
bury, whenever  it  shall  have  been  completed,  and  its  results  laid 
before  them. 

The  Bishop  of  Louisiana  moved  to  strike  out  the  following 
words :  "  Having  had  no  part  in  originating  or  organizing  the 
said  work  of  revision '" ;  which  was  lost. 

The  question  recurring  on  the  original  motion  of  the  Bishop  of 
New  York,  it  was  adopted  (p.  353), 

About  two  months  after  this  action  of  the  House  of  Bishops,  an 
invitation  was  sent,  at  the  request  of  the  English  Committee,  to  a 
number  of  gentlemen  who  had  already  been  communicated  with 
respecting  the  subject,  to  meet  in  New  York,  for  the  purpose  of 
receiving  information  as  to  the  work  in  England,  and  of  forming  a 
Committee  of  Revision  in  this  country.     At  this  meeting,  which 


36  HISTORICAL    ACCOUNT  OF   THE    WORK 

was  held  oii  the  7th  of  December,  1871,  the  following  persons 
were  present : 

Prof.  Philip  Schaff,  D.D.,  New  York  ;  Prof.  Henry  B.  Smith, 
D.D.,  New  York;  Prof.  William  Henry  Green,  D.D.,  Princeton, 
N.  J. ;  Prof.  George  Emlen  Hare,  D.D.,  Philadelphia,  Pa. ;  Prof. 
Chas.  P.  Krauth,  D.D.,  Philadelphia;  Rev.  Thos.  J.  Conant, 
D.D.,  Brooklyn,  N.  Y.;  Prof.  George  E.  Day,  D.D.,  New  Haven, 
Conn.;  Ezra  Abbot,  LL.D.,  Cambridge,  Mass. ;  Kev.  Edward  A. 
Washbm-D,  D.D.,  New  York. 

Dr.  Howsou,  Dean  of  Chester,  was  also  present  by  special  invi- 
tation, and  took  part  in  the  deliberations. 

Ex-President  "Woolsey,  Prof.  Hackett,  Prof.  Strong,  and  others, 
were  prevented  from  attending,  but  expressed  by  letter  their 
hearty  interest  in  the  proposed  work,  and  their  readiness  to  co- 
operate. 

The  meeting  was  organized  by  the  appointment  of  Prof.  Henry 
B.  Smith  as  Chairman,  and  Prof.  George  E.  Day  as  Secretary. 

After  prayer  by  the  Chairman,  Dr.  Schaff  introduced  the  sub- 
ject of  the  meeting  by  stating  that  he  had  been  requested  by  the 
British  Committee  for  the  Revision  of  the  Authorized  English 
Version  of  the  Scriptures,  through  the  Dean  of  Westminster,  to 
invite  American  scholars  to  co-operate  with  them  in  this  work. 
He    had    accordingly  extended   such  an  invitation  to  a  Hmited 
number  of  scholars,  most  of  them  professors  of  biblical  learning 
in  theological  seminaries  of  the  leading  Protestant  denominations. 
In  the  delicate  task  of  selection,  he  had  reference,  first  of  all,  to 
the   reputation   and   occupation   of   the   gentlemen    as    biblical 
scholars ;  next  to  their  denominational  connection  and  standing 
so  far  as  to  have  a  fair  representation  of  the  American  churches ; 
and  lastly,  to  local  convenience,  in  order  to  secure  regular  attend- 
ance on  the  meetings.     He  would  have  gladly  invited  others,  but 
thought  it  best  to  leave  the  responsibihty  of  enlargement  to  the 
Committee  itself  when  properly  constituted.     He  had  personally 
conferred  during  the   last  summer  with   Bishop  Ellicott,  Dean 
Stanley,  Prof.   Lightfoot,  Prof.  Westcott,   Dr.  Angus,  and  other 
British  revisers,  about  the  details  of  the  proposed  plan  of  co-opera- 
tion, and  was  happy  to  state  that  it  met  their  cordial  approval. 

Dr.  Schaff  also  read  a  list  of  scholars  who  had  been  invited  to 
engage  in  the  work  and  who  had  accepted  the  invitation. 

A  public  meeting  in  the  interests  of  the  work  of  Revision  was 
also  held  ou  the  evening  of  the  same  day  in  Calvary  Episcopal 


OF    THE    AMERICAN    COMMIITEE    OF    EEVISIOIV.  37 

Church,  in  New  York,  which  was  very  largely  attended  by  clergy- 
men and  intelligent  laymen.  It  was  conducted  by  the  Rector, 
Rev.  Dr.  Washburn,  and  addresses  were  made  by  Dean  Howson, 
of  England,  and  Dr.  Schaff. 

It  was  hoped,  at  this  time,  that  the  work  of  the  American  Com- 
mittee might  be  begun  at  a  very  early  day.  But  it  was  incidental 
to  so  great  an  undertaking,  which  was  to  continue  for  years,  that 
many  preliminary  arrangements  should  be  made.  Some  provision 
was  needed  for  the  necessary  expenses  of  the  work,  and  it  was 
desirable  to  secure  the  co-operation  of  various  bodies  of  Christians. 

As  the  authorities  of  the  Established  Church  in  the  Convocation 
of  Canterbury  had  originated  the  whole  plan  and  undertaking  in 
England,  and  learned  men  of  other  Christian  bodies  in  Great 
Britain  had  been  admitted  to  the  Revision  Companies  by  their 
invitation,  it  was  very  naturally  desired  by  the  English  Revisers 
that  some  of  the  Episcopal  Bishops  in  this  country  should  become 
members  of  the  American  Committee,  before  the  actual  work  here 
should  begin.  It  was  believed  that  their  participation  in  the  Re- 
vision would  facilitate  co-operation  with  the  Eughsh  Committee, 
and  would  give  satisfaction  to  the  members  of  the  Anglican  com- 
munion in  England.  When  the  House  of  Bishops,  therefore,- 
formally  declined  to  take  the  part  proposed  to  them  in  their  cor- 
porate capacity,  considerable  disappointment  was  felt  by  the 
English  Committee.  The  resolution  adopted  by  the  House,  how- 
ever, was  not  intended  to  be  binding  Avith  reference  to  individual 
Bishops.  They  were  understood  to  be  left  free  to  act  in  accord- 
ance with  their  own  judgment.  Correspondence  was,  therefore, 
opened  very  soon  with  several  of  the  more  eminent  among  them, 
and  invitations  were  extended  to  them  to  become  members  of  the 
American  Committee.  This  correspondence,  together  with  the 
necessary  interchange  of  communications  with  England,  occupied 
a  few  months,  thus  delaying  the  organization  of  the  Committee 
until  after  the  middle  of  the  year  1872.  Three  or  four  of  the 
Bishops  felt  themselves  constrained  by  the  action  taken  at  the 
time  of  the  General  Convention  to  decline  the  invitations  person- 
ally addressed  to  them,  or  for  other  reasons  of  a  more  private 
character  found  it  impossible  to  undertake  the  work.  All,  how- 
ever, expressed  an  interest  in  the  proposed  Revision,  and  stated 
that  their  grounds  for  declining  to  have  an  active  part  in  it  were , 
others  than  those  which  could  be  connected  with  any  disapproval 


38  HISTORICAL    ACCOUNT    OF   THE    WORK 

of  the   plan,   or  want  of   sympathy  with    the  body   which  orig- 
inated it.*     Bishop  Lee,  of  Delaware,  then  the  oldest  but  one  of 

[*  Bisliop  Mcllvaine,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  to  Dr.  Schaff.j 

Cincinnati,  May  20,  1871. 
Rev.  and  Deak  Sir  : 

I  have  just  returned  home  after  a  week's  absence,  having  received  in  the 
hour  of  departure  your  obliging  communication  on  the  subject  of  revision  of  the 
Scripture  version. 

I  am  glad  that  as  the  revision  in  England  was  set  on  foot  by  a  Convocation 
of  the  Church  of  England,  and  is  proceeding  mainly  under  such  guidance  and 
control,  in  constituting  an  American  Committee  to  co-operate,  the  work  of  forma- 
tion has  been  given  by  the  British  Committee  to  a  non- Episcopalian ,  and  to  you. 
This  will  greatly  help  not  only  the  all-sidedness  of  the  work,  but  in  case  it  shall 
be  desirable  to  introduce  it  into  substitution  for  the  present  version  will  very 
materially  prepare  the  way  for  such  result. 

I  am  much  indebted  to  you  for  the  kind  estimate  you  evince  of  my  revisionary 
qualifications,  in  doing  me  so  great  an  honor  as  to  ask  me  to  be  on  the  American 
Committee.  But  I  am  sure  you  have  over-estimated  my  ability.  The  sort  of  life 
a  Bishop  must  have  led,  who  for  almost  forty  years  has  superintended  this  large 
diocese,  is  not  favorable  to  the  sharpness  and  fulness  of  that  sort  of  learning 
and  that  lialiit  of  mind  which  such  revision  demands.  But  there  is  a  reason 
for  my  asking  you  to  excuse  me  which  admits  of  no  question.  The  state  of 
Jram-health  is  such  that  I  can  undertake  nothing  that  would  require  close  inves- 
tigation, and  especially  critical  study.  It  seems  to  have  become  so  established 
that,  during  the  few  years,  at  the  very  longest,  that  I  may  be  continued  here,  I 
can  expect  nothing  but,  by  great  caution  and  quietness,  to  be  enabled  to  do  my 
moderate  aud  untasking  work.     I  shall  carefully  mind  your  word  "  confidential.^' 

Yours  very  respectfully, 

Chas.  p.  McIlvaine. 

[Bishop  Williams,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  to  Dr.  Schaff.] 

MiDDLETOWN,  Feb.  26,  1872. 
My  Dear  Dr.  Schaff  : 

In  some  correspondence  with  the  Bishop  of  Winchester  I  have  respectfully 
declined  to  take  even  the  very  humble  part  I  could  take  in  the  now  pending  re- 
vision of  the  Bible. 

Let  me  assure  you  it  is  from  no  feeling  that  a  revision  is  not  needed,  nor  yet 
from  any  unwillingness  to  invoke  aid  in  making  it  from  otliers  than  members  of 
the  Church  of  England  that  I  have  been  led  to  this  view  of  my  duty.  Quite 
otlier  grounds  than  those  are  the  ones  I  stand  on,  though  I  need  not  trouble  you 
with  any  details  as  to  their  character, 

With  great  respect  truly  yours, 

J.  Williams. 

[Bishop  Whittingham,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  to  Dr.  Schaif.] 

Baltimore,  Feb.  24,  1872. 
Mt  Dear  Dn.  Schaff  : 

I  have  already,  some  time  ago,  declined  an  invitation  from  the  Bi.shop  of 
Winchester  (late  of  Oxford)  to  take  part  in  the  revision  of  the  Authorized  Version 


OF   THE    AMERICAN    COMMITTEE    OF    REVISION".  39 

the  American  Bishops  (now  the  Senior  Bishop),  and  held  in 
esteem  as  one  of  the  best  qualified  among  them  for  the  special 
work  devolved  upon  the  Committee,  accepted  the  invitation  and 
joined  the  New  Testament  Company  in  May,  1872.  Soon  after 
this  the  final  arrangements  were  consummated  by  Bev.  Dr.  Schafi", 
who  visited  Europe  in  the  summer  of  1872,  and  on  his  return  in 
the  autumn  the  Committee,  being  duly  organized,  began  its  work. 
The  delay  occasioned  by  the  various  causes,  which  have  been  re- 
ferred to  as  incidental  to  the  formation  of  such  a  body,  and  by 
the  necessity  of  communication  and  co-operation  between  the 
representatives  of  the  two  Committees  on  opposite  sides  of  the 
ocean,  caused  the  American  Companies  to  be  nearly  two  years 
later  than  the  English  in  beginning  their  duties.  They  pressed 
forward  their  work  with  much  energy,  however,  and  were  enabled 
to  complete  it  contemporaneously  with  their  English  brethren. 


The  first  meeting  of  the  American  Committee,  when  its  organ- 
ization was  completed,  was  held  at  the  Bible  House  in  New  York 
on  the  4th  of  October,  1872.  The  following  record  and  letters 
will  give  the  reader  the  account  of  this  meeting  and  organization. 

[Circular  Letter  of  Dr.  ScliafE  to  the  American  Revisers.] 

New  York,  Sept.  13, 1872. 
Dear  Sir  : 

I  have  the  honor  to  inform  you  that,  during  a  recent  visit  to 
England,  I  have  succeeded  in  completing  the  arrangements  for 
co-operation  with  the  British  Committee  on  Bible  Revision,  and 
that  confidential  copies  of  the  revised  version  of  several  books  of 
the  Old  and  New  Testaments  have  been  forwarded  to  me  for  the 
use  of  the  members  of  the  American  Committee. 

You  are  therefore  requested  to  attend  a  meeting  of  the  Ameri- 
can revisers  to  be  held  on  Friday,  Oct.  4, 1872,  at  2  p.m.,  in  my 
study  in   the   Bible  House,  for  the  purpose  of  completing  the 

now  carrying  on  by  the  Convocation  of  Canterbury,  for  reasons  made  known  to 
him — not  arising  out  of  any  hostility  on  my  part  to  the  revision  itself. 

Of  course,  I  am  unable  to  accept  the  gratifying  and  courteous  invitation 
which  you  now  extend  to  me. 

I  am  glad  of  the  opportunity  thus  afforded  me  of  saying  how  much  pleasure  1 
have  in  any  approach  to  the  renewal  of  well-remembered  profitable  intercourse 
enjoyed  in  former  days,  and  how  truly  I  am 

Your  faithful  and  aJfectionate  friend  and  brother, 

W.  R.  WniTTiUGnAM. 


40  HISTORICAL    ACCOUNT    OF    THE    WORK 

organization  and  commencing  actual  work.     It  is  especially  im- 
portant that  this  meeting  should  be  fully  attended. 

Eespectfully  yours, 

Philip  Schaff. 
Rev.  Dr.  Woolset,  and  others. 


MEETING  OF  THE   COMMITTEE, 

OCTOBEE  4,  1872. 

The  Organization  Completed. 

[Prom  the  Minutes  of  the  American  Committee.] 

New  Yoek,  Oct.  4,  1872. 
The  American  Committee  on  the  Reyision  of  the  English  Au- 
y  thorized  Version  of  the  Bible  met  this  day,  at  2  p.m.,  at  the  study 
/      of  Dr.  Schaff,  No.  40  Bible  House,  to  complete  their  organiza- 
tion and  make  arrangements  for  the  work  before  them. 

Present :  Drs.  DeWitt,  Green,  Hare,  Strong,  Lee,  Woolsey, 
Abbot,  Kendrick,  Thayer,  Schaff,  and  Day. 

Rev.  Dr.  Woolsey  was  appointed  temporary  Chairman.  After 
prayer  by  Bishop  Lee,  the  minutes  of  the  last  meeting  were  read 
and  approved. 

Prof.  Charles  Short  and  Prof.  James  Hadley  were  unanimously 
elected,  and  took  their  seats  as  members  of  the  Committee. 

Letters,  or  messages,  were  received  from  Profs.  Krauth,  Lewis, 
Smith,  Hackett,  Warren,  and  Riddle,  expressing  their  regret  at 
not  being  able  to  be  present,  with  the  assurance  of  their  con- 
tinued readiness  to  co-operate. 

Printed  copies  of  the  revision  by  the  British  Companies,  so  far 
as  completed,  viz.,  in  the  O.  T.  of  Genesis,  Exodus,  and  Leviticus; 
in  the  N.  T.  of  the  Gospels  of  Matthew,  Mark,  and  Luke,  were 
then  distributed  to  the  members  of  the  American  Companies,  with 
,  the  express  understanding  that  tliey  should  be  regarded  and  kept 
as  strictly  confidential. 

After  a  brief  statement  by  Dr.  Schaff  in  regard  to  the  present 
state  of  the  work  of  revision  in  Great  Britain,  and  the  desire  of 
the  British  Committee  to  come  into  immediate  connection  with 
the  American  Committee,  the  following  officers  were  appointed 
by  ballot : 

Rev.  Dr.  Philip  Schaff,  President. 
Prof.  George  E.  Day,  Secretary. 
Prof.  Charles  Short,  Treasurer. 


OF    THE    AMERICAN    COMMITTEE    OF    EEVISION.  41 

It  was  then  'voted : 

1.  That  the  two  Companies  hold  their  meetings  in  New  York. 

2.  That  the  ofiBcers  of  the  Committee  be  authorized  to  secure 
the  room  No.  42  in  the  Bible  House  for  one  year  or  less,  and  to 
purchase  the  necessary  furniture. 

3.  That  Professors  Short,  Day,  and  Green  be  a  Committee  to 
report  upon  the  means  of  obtaining  the  necessary  funds  for  the 
prosecution  of  the  work  of  the  Committee. 

The  two  Companies  then  separated  for  the  purpose  of  organiza- 
tion. On  meeting  again,  the  O.  T.  Company  reported  that  they 
had  made  choice  of  Prof.  William  Henry  Green  as  Chairman  ;  and 
Prof.  George  E.  Day,  Secretary.  The  N.  T.  Company  reported 
that  they  had  elected  Ptev.  Di-.  Woolsey,  Chairman  ;  and  Prof. 
Charles  Short,  Secretary.* 

The  Committee  then  adjourned  to  meet  at  No.  40  Bible  House 
on  Saturday,  Nov.  2,  at  9  A.M. 

George  E.  Day, 

Secretary. 

[Dr.  SchafE  to  Bishop  Ellicott.] 

New  York,  Oct.  12,  1872. 
My  Lord  : 

I  have  the  honor  to  inform  you  that  the  American  Committee 
of  revisers  is  now  fully  organized,  and  has  entered  upon  its  work. 

A  meeting  of  the  revisers  Avas  held  in  my  study  on  the  4th  of 
October.  Bishop  Lee  opened  the  meeting  with  prayer.  Most  of 
the  members  were  present ;  the  rest  sent  letters  asking  to  be  ex- 
cused for  unavoidable  absence,  but  expressing  deep  interest  in 
the  work,  and  their  readiness  to  co-operate. 

I  distributed  among  the  members  present  copies  of  the  revised 
version  of  Genesis,  Exodus,  and  Leviticus,  and  of  the  Gospels  of 
St.  Matthew,  St.  Mark,  and  St.  Luke,  which  were  intrusted  to  me 
by  the  British  Committee  for  the  exclusive  use  of  the  American 
Committee.  The  confidential  character  of  these  documents  will 
be  sacredly  respected. 

The  organization  was  then  completed  by  the  unanimous  elec- 
tion of  the  undersigned  as  President ;  of  Prof.  George  E.  Day, 

[*  Afterwards  Prof.  Thayer  was  also  elected  Secretary  of  tte  N.  T.  Company 
and  relieved  Prof.  Short  of  a  part  of  the  work,  which  became  very  laborious  as 
the  revision  proceeded.] 


42  HISTORICAL    ACCOUNT    OF    THE    WORK 

D.D.,  of  Yale  College,  New  Haven,  as  CoiTesponding  Secretary  ; 
and  of  Prof.  Charles  Short,  LL.D.,  of  Columbia  College,  New 
York,  as  Treasurer. 

The  Company  for  the  revision  of  the  Old  Testament  elected 
Prof.  W.  Henry  Green,  D.D.,  of  the  Theological  Seminary  at 
Princeton,  its  Chairman,  and  Prof.  Day,  Eecording  Secretary. 
The  officers  of  the  New  Testament  Company  are  the  Rev. 
Ex-President  Theodore  D.  Woolsey,  D.D.,  LL.D,  of  New 
Haven,  Chau'man,  and  Prof.  Charles  Short,  Recording  Secre- 
tary. 

Both  Companies  agreed  to  hold  periodical  meetings  every 
month.  The  next  meeting  will  begin  November  2.  We  have 
rented  and  furnished  a  room  in  the  Bible  House,  and  shall  soon 
take  measures  to  provide  for  the  necessary  expenses. 

As  President  of  the  whole  Committee  it  is  my  duty  according 
to  Art.  III.  of  our  constitution  to  conduct  the  official  correspond- 
ence with  the  British  revisers. 

It  is  in  discharge  of  this  duty  that  I  write  this  letter. 

I  look  forward  with  great  pleasure  to  a  continuance  of  the 
corresponde)]ce  with  our  brethren  in  England. 

I  may  add  that  our  recent  meeting  was  a  very  harmonious  one, 
and  gives  good  promise  of  earnest  and  vigorous  co-operation  Avith 
the  British  Committee.  We  apprehend  no  material  difference, 
and  feel  confident  that  so  noble  and  holy  a  work,  which  engages 
the  united  labors  and  prayers  of  Christian  scholars  from  all 
branches  of  Anglo-Saxon  Christendom,  will  be  crowned  with  the 
blessing  of  the  Divine  Author  of  the  Scriptures. 

I  assure  you  and  the  members  of  the  Company  you  represent 
of  my  profound  regard  and  best  wishes  and  prayers  for  the  suc- 
cess of  your  work.  Truly  yours, 

Philip  Schaff. 

The  LoBD  Bisnop  of  Gloucester  and  Buistol, 

Chairman  of  the  New  Test.  Company  of  Revision. 

[Bishop  Ellicott  to  Dr.  Schaff.] 

Gloucester,  Nov.  21,  1872. 
Dear  Dr.  Schaff  : 

I  am  requested  by  the  New  Testament  Company  to  thank  you 
for  your  kind  note  and  to  express  their  sincere  pleasure  at  hear- 
ing so  excellent  an  account  of  your  progress. 


OF    THE    AMERICAlSr    COMMITTEE    OF    REVISION.  43 

The  Company  present  their  kind  compliments  and   best  wishes 
to  the  distinguished  scholars  over  whom  you  preside. 

Very  faithfully  yours, 

C.  J.  Gloucester  and  Beistol. 


The  List  of  the  American  Committee  as  finally  constituted,  and 
including  both  those  who  participated  in  the  organization  of  the 
body  and  others  who  were  added  to  the  membership  by  election 
at  some  of  the  earliest  meetings,  may  be  appropriately  inserted 
at  this  point.  The  membership  was  necessarily  limited  to 
scholars  whose  residence  was  not  so  remote  fi'om  the  City  of  New 
York  as  to  make  their  attendance  at  the  monthly  meetings  of  the 
Committee  impossible. 

GENERAL   OFFICERS   OF   THE   COMMITTEE: 

Philip  Schaff,  D.D,  LL.D.,  President. 
George  E.  Day,  D.D,  Secretary. 

(1)  Old  Testament  Comjmny  : 

Professor  Wm.  Henry  Green,  D.D.,  LL.  D.  (Chairman),  Theo- 
logical Seminary,  Princeton,  N.  J. 

Professor  George  E.  Day,  D.D.  (Secretary),  Divinity  School  of. 
Yale  College,  New  Haven,  Conn. 

Professor  Charles  A.  Aiken,  D.D.,  Theological  Seminary, 
Princeton,  N.  J.    . 

The  Rev.  Talbot  W.  Chambers,  D.D.,  Collegiate  Reformed 
Dutch  Church,  New  York. 

Professor  Thomas  J.  Conant,  D.D.,  Brooklyn,  N.  Y. 

Professor  John  DeWitt,  D.D.,  Theological  Seminary,  New 
Brunswick,  N.  J. 

Professor  George  Emlen  Hare,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  Divinity  School, 
Philadelphia. 

Professor  Charles  P.  Krauth,  D.D.,  LL.D,  Vice-Provost  of  the 
University  of  Pennsylvania,  Philadelphia. 

Professor  Tayler  Lewis,  LL.D.,  Union  College,  Schenectady, 
N.  Y. 

Professor  Charles  M.  Mead,  Ph.D.,  Theological  Seminary,  An- 
dover,  Mass. 


44  HISTORICAL    ACCOUNT    OF   THE    WORK 

Professor  Howard  Osgood,  D.D.,  Theological  Seminary, 
Kochester,  N.  Y. 

Professor  Joseph  Packard,  D.D.,  Theological  Seminary,  Alex- 
andria, Va. 

Professor  Calvin  E.  Stowe,  D.D.,  Hartford,  Conn. 

Professor  James  Strong,  S.  T.  D.,  Theological  Seminary,  Madi- 
son, N.  J. 

Professor  C.  A.  Van  Dyck,  D.D.,  M.D.,  Beirut,  Syria  (Advisory 
Member  on  questions  of  Arabic).* 

Note. — The  American  Old  Testament  Company  lost  by  death  Prof.  Tayler 
Lewis,  d.  1877  ;  Dr.  Kratjth,  Philadelphia,  d.  Jan.  2,  1883  ;  and  Dr.  Stowe,  by 
resignation. 

(2)  New  Testament  Comjyany. 

Ex-President  Theodore  D.  Woolsey,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  (Chair- 
man), New  Haven,  Conn. 

Professor  J.  Heney  Thayer,  D.D.  (Secretary),  Theological  Sem- 
inary, Andover,  Mass. 

Professor  Ezra  Abbot,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  Divinity  School,  Harvard 
Universit}^  Cambridge,  Mass. 

The  Eev.  Jonathan  K.  Burr,  D.D.,  Trenton,  N.  J. 

President  Thomas  Chase,  LL.D.,  Haverford  College,  Pa. 

Chancellor  Howard  Crosby,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  New  York. 

Professor  Timothy  Dwight,  D.D.,  Divinity  School  of  Yale  Col- 
lege, New  Haven,  Conn. 

Professor  James  Hadley,  LL.D.,  Yale  College,  New  Haven, 
Conn. 

Professor  Horatio  B.  Hackett,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  Theological  Sem- 
inary, Rochester,  N.  Y. 

Professor  Charles  Hodge,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  Theological  Seminary, 
Princeton,  N.  J. 

Professor  A.  C.  Kendrick,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  University  of  Roches- 
ter, N.  Y. 

The  Right  Rev.  Alfred  Lee,  D.D.,  Bishop  of  the  Diocese  of 
Delaware. 

Professor  Matthew  B.  Riddle,  D.D.,  Theological  Seminary, 
Hartford,  Conn. 

*  Dr.  Van  Dyck  has  rendered  important  aid  to  the  Old  Testament  Company, 
both  in  his  correspondence  with  them,  and  by^the  preparation  of  a  full  list  of  the 
variations,  in  the  renderings  of  the  recent  Arabic  translation  of  the  Book  of  Job, 
from  the  renderings  of  the  Authorized  English  Version. 


OF    THE    AMEEICAlSr    COMMITTEE    OF    EEVISION.  45 

Professor  Philip  Schaff,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  Union  Theological  Sem- 
inary, New  York. 

Professor  Charles  Shoet,  LL.D.  (Secretary),  Columbia  Col- 
lege, New  York. 

Professor  Henry  Boynton  Smith,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  Uuion  Theolog- 
ical Seminary,  New  Y'^ork. 

The  Key.  Edward  A.  Washburn,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  Rector  of  Calvary 
Church,  New  York. 

Note. — The  American  New  Testament  Company  lost  by  death  Prof.  Jajues 
Hadley  (wbo  attended  the  first  session),  d.  1872  ;  Dr.  Henry  Boynton  Smith 
(who  attended  one  session,  and  resigned  from  ill  health),  d.  1877  ;  Dr.  HoRATiO 
B.  Hackett,  d.  1876  ;  Dr.  Charles  Hodge  (who  never  attended  the  meetings, 
but  corresponded  with  the  Committee),  d.  1878;  Rev.  Dr.  Washburn,  d.  Feb.  3, 
1881  (after  the  completion  of  the  N.  T.  Revision);  Rev.  Dr.  BuRR,  d.  April 
24,  1882,  and  Prof.  Ezra  Abbot,  d.  March  20,  1884.  Dr.  G.  R.  Crooks  and  Dr. 
W.  F.  Warren,  who  accepted  the  original  appointment,  found  it  impossible  to 
attend  any  meetings  and  resigned. 

« 

It  is  an  interesting  fact  connected  with  the  work  of  Revision  in 
America,  that  only  one  of  those  who  were  actively  engaged  in  the 
Revision  of  the  Version  of  the  New  Testament — Professor 
Hackett — died  before  it  was  completed.  Professors  Henry  B. 
Smith  and  Charles  Hodge  attended  no  meetings  after  the  actual 
work  began,  and  thus  had  only  a  nominal  connection  with  the 
Company,  while  Professor  James  Hadley  was  present  only  at  the 
first  meeting,  his  death  having  occurred  in  November,  1872.  Of 
the  Old  Testament  Company  Dr.  Krauth  is  the  only  active  mem- 
ber who  has  died — Professor  Tayler  Lewis,  who  died  in  1877, 
having  been  unable  to  particifjate  in  any  of  the  meetings.  It  is 
also  interesting  to  note  the  fact  that  the  few  members  who  were 
not  in  the  Committee  at  its  first  organization  Avere  elected  by  the 
body  almost  immediately  afterwards,  so  that  all  those  who  brought 
the  work  to  its  completion  had  a  part  in  all  its  stages  from  the 
beginning.  The  Revision,  so  far  as  it  is  the  work  of  the  Ameri- 
can Committee,  is,  thus,  the  result  of  the  joint  labors  of  an 
almost  unbroken  company  during  a  period  of  eight  years  in  the  New 
Testament  part  of  it,  and  twelve  years  in  the  Old  Testament  part. 


The  rules  under  which  the  English  Companies  carried  on  the 
work  were  as  follows  : 


46  HISTORICAL    ACCOUNT    OF   THE    A70RK 

PEINCIPLES    AND    RULES    OF    THE    BEITISH    COM- 
MITTEE. 

At  the  first  meeting  of  the  Committee,  appointed  by  the  Con- 
vocation of  Canterbury,  May  6,  1870,  in  accordance  with  the  sub- 
joined Report,*  accepted  by  Convocation  at  its  last  session,  the 
following  resolutions  and  rules  were  agreed  to  as  the  fundamental 
principles  on  which  the  revision  is  to  be  conducted : 

Eesolved, — 

I.  That  the  Committee  appointed  by  the  Convocation  of  Can- 
terbury at  its  hist  Session  separate  itself  into  two  Companies,  the 
one  for  the  revision  of  the  Authorised  Version  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, the  other  for  the  revision  of  the  Authorised  Version  of  the 
New  Testament. 

II.  That  the  Company  for  the  revision  of  the  Authorised  Ver- 
sion of  the  Old  Testament  consist  of  the  Bishops  of  St.  Da^dd's, 
Llandaff,  Ely,  Lincoln,  and  Bath  and  Wells,  and  of  the  following 
members  from  the  Lower  House :  Archdeacon  Rose,  Canon 
Selwyn,  Dr.  Jebb,  and  Dr.  Kay. 

III.  That  the  Company  for  the  revision  of  the  Authorised 
Version  of  the  New  Testament  consist  of  the  Bishops  of  Win- 
chester, Gloucester  and  Bristol,  and  Salisbury,  and  of  the  follow- 
ing members  from  the  Lower  House  :  the  Prolocutor,  the  Deans 
of  Canterbury  and  Westminster,  and  Canon  Blakesley. 

IV.  That  the  first  portion  of  the  work  to  be  undertaken  by  the 
Old  Testament  Company  be  the  revision  of  the  Authorised  Ver- 
sion of  the  Pentateuch. 

V.  That  the  first  portion  of  the  work  to  bo  undertaken  by  the 

*"1.  That  it  is  desirable  that  a  revision  of  the  Authorised  Version  of  the 
Holy  Scriptures  be  undertaken." 

"2.  That  the  revi.sion  be  so  conducted  as  to  comprise  both  marginal  render- 
ings and  such  emendations  as  it  may  be  found  necessary  to  insert  in  the  text  of 
the  Authorised  Ver.sion." 

"  3.  That  in  the  above  resolutions  we  do  not  contemplate  any  new  translation 
of  the  Bible,  or  any  alteration  of  the  language,  except  where,  in  the  judgment  of 
the  most  competent  scholars,  eucli  change  is  necessary." 

"4.  That  in  such  necessary  changes,  the  style  of  the  language  employed  in  the 
existing  version  be  closely  followed." 

"5'.  That  it  is  desirable  that  Convocation  should  nominate  a  body  of  its  own 
members  to  undertake  the  work  of  revision,  who  shall  bo  at  liberty  to  invite  the 
co-operation  of  any  eminent  for  scholarship,  to  whatever  nation  or  religious  body 
they  may  belong." 


OF   THE    AMEKICAN    COMMITTEE    OF    EEVISION. 


47 


New  Testament  Company  be  the  revision  of  the  Authorised  Ver- 
sion of  the  Synoptical  Gospels. 

VL  That  the  followiug  scholars  and  divines  be  invited  to  join 
the  Old  Testament  Company  : — 


ALEXANDER,  Dr.   vV.L. 
CHENERY,  Professor 
COOK,  Canon 

DAVIDSON,  Professor  A. B. 
DAVIES,  Dr.  B. 
FAIRBAIRN,  Professor 
FIELD,  Rev.  F. 


GINSBUEG,  Dr. 
GOTCH,  Dr. 

HARRISON,  Archdeacon 
LEATHES,  Professor 
M'GILL,  Professor 
PAYNE  SMITH,  Canon 
PEROWNE,  Prof.  J.  H. 


PLUMPTRE,  Professor 

PUSEY,  Canon 

WRIGHT,  Dr.  (British 
Museum) 

WRIGHT,  W.  A.  (Cam- 
bridge) 


VII.  Tliat  the  following  scholars  and  divines  be  invited  to  join 
the  New  Testament  Company  : — 


ANGUS,  Dr. 
BROWN,  Dr.  DAVID 
DUBLIN,  Archbishop  of 
EADIE,  Dr. 
HORT,  Rev.  F.  J.  A. 
HUMPHRY,  Rev.  W.  G. 
KENNEDY.  Canon 


LEE,  Archdeacon 
LIUHTFOOT,  Dr. 
MILLIGAN,  Professor 
MOULTON,  Professor 
NEWxMAN,  Dr.  J.  H. 
NEVVTH,  Professor 
ROBERTS,  Dr.  A. 
SMITH,  Rev.  G.  VANCE 


SCOTT,Dr.  (BalliolCoU.) 
SCRIVENER,    Rev.    F. 

H.  A. 
ST.  ANDREWS,  Bp.  of 
TREGELLES,  Dr. 
VAUGHAN,  Dr. 
VVESTCOTT,  Canon 


VIII.  That  the  general  principles  to  be  followed  by  both  Com- 
panies be  as  follows : 

1.  To  introduce  as  few  alterations  as  possible  into  the  text 

of  the  Authorised  Version  consistently  with  faithfulness. 

2.  To  limit  as  far  as  possible  the  expression  of  such  altera- 

tions to  the  language  of  the  Authorised  and  earlier  Eng- 
lish versions. 

3.  Each  Company  to  go  twice  over  the  portion  to  be  revised, 

once  provisionally,  the  second  time  finally,  and  on  prin- 
ciples of  voting  as  hereinafter  is  provided. 

4.  That  the  text  to  be  adopted  be  that  for  which  the  evidence 

is  decidedly  preponderating;  and  that  when  the  text  so 
adopted  differs  from  that  from  which  the  Authorised  Ver- 
sion was  made,  the  alteration  be  indicated  in  the  margin. 

5.  To  make  or  retain  no  change  in  the   text  on  the  second 

final  revision  by  each  Company,  except  tivo-thirds  of  those 
present  approve  of  the  same,  but  on  the  first  revision  to 
decide  by  simple  majorities. 

6.  In  every  case  of  proposed  alteration  that  may  have  given 

rise  to  discussion,  to  defer  the  voting  thereupon  till  the 
next  meeting,  whensoever  the  same  shall  be  required  by 
one-third  of  those  present  at  the  meeting,  such  intended 
vote  to  be  announced  in  the  notice  for  the  next  meeting. 


48  HISTORICAL    ACCOUNT    OF   THE    WORK 

7.  To   revise  the   headings  of   chapters,   pages,  paragraphs, 

italics,  and  punctuation. 

8.  To  refer,  on  the  part  of  each  Company,  when  considered 

desirable,  to  divines,  scholars,  and  literary  men,  whether 
at  home  or  abroad,  for  their  opinions, 

IX.  That  the  work  of  each  Company  be  communicated  to  the 
other  as  it  is  completed,  in  order  that  there  may  be  as  little  devi- 
ation from  uniformity  in  language  as  possible. 

X.  That  the  special  or  bj^-rules  for  each  Company  be  as  fol- 
lows : 

1.  To    make    all    corrections   in   writing    previous    to    the 

meeting. 

2.  To  place  all  the  corrections  due  to  textual  considerations 

on  the  left-hand  margin,  and  all  other  corrections  on  the 
right-hand  margin. 

3.  To  transmit  to  the  chairman,  in  case  of  being  unable  to 

attend,  the  corrections  proposed  in  the  portion  agreed 
upon  for  consideration. 


The  rules  of  the  American  Committee  included  those  adopted 
in  England  in  all  essential  points,  and  were  set  forth  in  the  fol- 
lowing Constitution : 

"  I.  The  American  Committee,  invited  by  the  British  Com- 
mittee, engaged  in  the  revision  of  the  Authorized  English  Version 
of  the  Holy  Scriptures,  to  co-operate  Avith  them,  shall  be  com- 
posed of  biblical  scholars  and  divines  in  the  United  States. 

"  II.  This  Committee  shall  have  the  power  to  elect  its  officers, 
to  add  to  its  number,  and  to  fill  its  own  vacancies. 

"  III.  The  officers  shall  consist  of  a  President,  a  Corresponding 
Secretary,  and  a  Treasurer.  The  President  shall  conduct  the 
official  correspondence  with  the  British  revisers.  The  Secretary 
shall  conduct  the  home  correspondence. 

"  IV.  New  members  of  the  Committee  and  cori'esponding  mem- 
bers must  be  nominated  ut  a  previous  meeting,  and  elected  unan- 
imously by  ballot. 

"  V.  The  American  Committee  shall  co-operate  with  the  British 
Companies  on  the  basis  of  the  principles  and  rules  of  revision 
adopted  by  the  British  Committee. 

"  VI.  The  American  Committee  shall  consist  of  two  Companies, 


OF    THE    AMERICAN    COMMITTEE    OF    REVISION.  49 

the  one  for  the  revision  of  the  Authorized  Version  of  the  Old 
Testrament,  the  other  for  the  revision  of  the  Authorized  Version 
of  the  New  Testament. 

"  VII.  Each  Company  shall  elect  its  own  Chairman  and  Re- 
cording Secretary. 

"  VIII.  The  British  Companies  will  submit  to  the  American 
Companies,  from  time  to  time,  such  portions  of  their  work  as  have 
passed  the  first  revision,  and  the  American  Companies  will  trans- 
mit their  criticisms  and  suggestions  to  the  British  Companies  be- 
fore the  second  revision. 

"  IX.  A  joint  meeting  of  the  American  and  British  Companies 
shall  be  held,  if  possible,  in  London,  before  final  action. 

"  X.  The  American  Committee  shall  pay  their  own  expenses." 

The  meetings  of  the  two  American  Companies  were  held  every 
month,  from  September  to  May  inclusive,  in  each  year,  at  rooms 
No.  42  and  44  Bible  House,  New  York.  A  summer  meeting  was 
held  in  the  month  of  July  at  some  place  designated  by  the  Com- 
panies,— usually  at  New  Haven,  Andover  or  Princeton.  The 
summer  meetings  continued  for  a  week  ;  the  other  meetings  for 
two  days.  The  members  sat  around  a  common  table,  and  freely 
and  fully  discussed  such  passages  or  chapters  as  had  been  previ- 
ously assigned  for  the  particular  meeting — each  member  having 
already  examined  and  investig^xted  them  for  himself.  In  this  way 
the  whole  of  the  New  Testament,  and  of  the  Old,  was  minutely 
considered  and  discussed.  The  work  was  reviewed  in  this  care- 
ful manner  twice  from  beginning  to  end.  In  the  first  revision, 
changes  in  the  Authorized  Version  were  recorded  for  further  con- 
sideration in  case  they  were  favored  by  a  majority  of  votes ;  but, 
in  the  second  revision,  the  rule  demanded  a  vote  of  two-thirds  in 
order  to  adopt  the  proposed  change.  Finally,  all  passages  were 
examined  a  third  time  in  which  unreconciled  difi'erences  still 
remained  between  the  views  of  the  EngHsh  and  American  Com- 
panies. The  thoroughness  and  patience  with  which  the  work  was 
done  will  be  manifest  to  the  reader  from  this  brief  statement.  It 
may  safely  be  said  that  no  criticism  has  been  made  on  the  New 
Testament  portion  of  the  work  already  published,  which  was  not 
anticipated,  and  accorded  a  fair  and  full  discussion  by  the  Eevisers 
in  the  progress  of  the  work.  The  same  will,  doubtless,  prove  to 
have  been  the  ease  with  respect  to  the  Old  Testament,  which  is 
issued  simultaneously  with  this  Historical  Statement. 


50  HISTOKICAL    ACCOUNT    OF    THE    WORK 

The  membersliip  of  the  two  Companies  indudecl  scholars  of  the 
principal  Protestant  denominations.  The  opportunity  was  thus 
given  for  a  fair  and  able  presentation  of  the  views  of  each,  so  far 
as  such  views  have  a  bearing  upoD  the  matter  of  the  translation 
of  words  and  sentences.  Controversy,  however,  never  arose  in 
the  meetings  on  points  dividing  religious  bodies.  The  spirit  of 
scholarship  rose  far  above  the  sectarian  spirit,  and  the  latter  was 
at  no  time  manifest.  It  is  a  satisfaction  to  all  the  revisers  in  the 
retrospect,  to  know  that  there  was,  from  the  beginning  to  the 
close  of  their  labors,  a  constant  and  dehghtful  exhibition  of  Chris- 
tian unity.  This  fact,  which  it  is  pleasant  to  remember,  may  also, 
it  is  believed,  bear  with  itself  a  testimony  to  the  general  accuracy 
of  their  work. 

The  relations  between  the  Committees  of  Eevisiou  in  the  two 
countries  involved  some  questions  of  importance  which  called  for 
extended  correspondence,  but  were  finally  settled  by  an  agree- 
ment between  the  two  parties  which  met  the  approval  of  both. 
At  an  early  period  in  the  history  of  the  work,  an  arrangement  had 
been  made  betAveen  the  English  Companies  and  the  officers  con- 
nected with  the  University  Presses  of  Oxford  and  Cambridge, 
by  which  the  Revised  Version  in  Great  Britain  became  the  prop- 
erty of  those  institutions,  on  condition  that  the  large  expenses 
incidental  to  the  preparation  of  the  work  in  that  country  should 
be  paid  by  them.  The  copyright,  in  Great  Britain,  accordingly, 
passed  into  their  control.  It  w^as  at  no  time  desired  by  the 
American  Committee  to  have  any  such  arrangement  made  be- 
tween themselves  and  pubhshers  in  the  United  States,  or  in  any 
way  to  put  a  restriction  on  the  sale  of  the  new  book,  for  the  pur- 
pose of  securing  any  remuneration  for  their  own  services  or  any 
benefit  for  themselves  whatever.  No  copyright  was  thought  of  or 
wished  for  in  this  country  Avith  any  such  end  in  view.  At  one 
time,  however,  the  subject  of  securing  a  copyright  here  for  the 
solo  purpose  of  preventing  the  publication  of  inaccurate  and  im- 
perfect editions,  was  considered  and  discussed.  This  led  to  a 
series  of  communications  with  the  managers  of  the  University 
Presses,  and  also  to  some  inquiries  addressed  to  legal  authorities 
in  the  United  States.  The  feehng,  however,  on  the  part  of  the 
members  of  the  American  Committee  was  so  general  and  so  per- 
manent, that  the  book  should  be  made  a  free  gift  to  the  public, 
with  no  limitation  whatever  in  the  way  of  its  widest  circulation, 
that  the  whole  matter  was  laid  aside  by  common  consent.     Diffi- 


OF   THE    AMERICAN    COMMITTEE    OF    REVISION.  51 

culties  might,  not  improbably,  have  arisen  in  the  case  of  a  work 
having  such  a  character — the  authorship  being  in  the  persons  of 
citizens  of  two  different  countries.  The  correspondence  also  inci- 
dentally developed  the  fact  that  no  satisfactory  arrangements 
could  be  made  with  the  Presses,  had  there  been  a  desire  to  ac- 
complish that  end.  The  determination  of  the  American  gentlemen 
was  that  they  would  not  receive  pecuniary  benefit  from  their  work, 
or  even,  in  any  way,  seem  to  do  so  ;  and,  after  due  consideration, 
it  was  thought  that  the  danger  of  the  appearance  of  undesirable 
editions  was  not  sufficient  to  lead  them  to  reverse  or  turn  aside 
from  their  settled  purpose.  As  some  standard  edition,  however, 
was  necessary,  the  American  Committee  agreed  to  make  a  public 
statement,  that  the  one  issued  by  the  University  Presses  was  the 
one  for  whose  accuracy  they  would  hold  themselves  responsible. 

As  the  American  Committee  was  organized  later  than  the 
one  in  England,  and  only  in  accordance  with  a  vote  of  Con- 
vocation "to  invite  their  co-operation,"  it  was  natural  that 
questions  should  arise  as  to  the  precise  relation  of  the  American 
body  to  the  English — whether  they  were  to  hold  the  place 
of  advisers  merely,  or  of  fellow-revisers  with  their  English 
brethren.  The  difficulties  connected  with  the  deciding  of 
questions  by  the  votes  of  two  different  bodies  of  men  three 
thousand  miles  apart;  the  apparent  necessity  that  the  final 
determination  should  be  made  in  one  place  and  by  those 
who  could  confer  with  one  another ;  the  reasonable  claim  to  a 
certain  priority  on  the  part  of  the  English  Companies  by  reason 
of  the  fact  that  the  work  Avas  originated  in  their  country ;  and 
the  equally  appropriate  feeling  that  the  representatives  of  our  na- 
tion should  have  a  recognized  participation  in  the  work  to  which 
they  devoted,  as  fully  as  did  the  scholars  in  England,  years  of 
labor, — all  these  points,  together  with  others  closely  related  to 
them,  were  made  the  subject  of  communication  and,  as  far  as  pos- 
sible, of  conference.  Several  plans  were  suggested  by  which 
the  ends  desired  by  the  two  parties  might  be  attained.  One  or 
two  of  them,  after  some  consideration,  found  favor  for  a  time 
with  both  Committees,  but,  as  unforeseen  objections  arose,  they 
were  afterwards  abandoned.  The  one  most  worthy  of  mention 
was  a  plan  by  which  certain  members  of  each  Committee  should 
be  elected  into  the  membership  of  the  other,  and  should  have  the 
right  of  voting  by  letter.     This  arrangement,  however,   seemed 


52  HISTORICAL    ACCOUNT    OF    THE    WORK 

cumbersome,  and  likely  to  be  attended  by  delay  and  other  diffi- 
culties in  its  practical  operation.  It  was  also  exposed  to  some 
objections  connected  with  the  relations  of  the  English  Committ(;e 
to  the  Presses  which  had  a  certain  control  of  their  work.  In 
view  of  these  points  it  was  rejected,  and,  indeed,  was  never  alto- 
gether approved  as  a  feasible  and  desirable  one  by  either  party. 
The  attitude  of  the  EugUsh  Committee  towards  the  suggestions 
of  the  American  Eevisers  was  always  that  of  readiness  to  give 
them  most  respectful  consideration.  In  July,  1873,  when  the 
question  of  the  relations  of  the  two  bodies  was  first  brought  under 
consideration,  both  the  Old  and  New  Testament  Companies  in 
England  declared  that  they  were  "  glad  to  have  the  opportunity 
of  repeating  the  assurance  that  they  will  give  the  most  careful 
consideration,"  and  "  will  attach  great  weight  and  importance  to 
all  the  suggestions  of  the  American  Committee."  Two  years  later 
the  same  assurance  was  repeated,  the  two  Companies  again  de- 
claring that  they  "will  continue  to  give  the  greatest  possible 
weight  to  every  suggestion  of  the  American  Committee  and  will 
also  endeavor,  whether  by  conference  or  otherwise,  to  arrive  at  an 
agreement  upon  any  points  of  importance  as  to  which  the  Euglish 
Companies  and  the  American  Committee  may  not  be  fully  agreed." 
Soon  afterwards,  and  in  connection  with  an  able  presentation  of 
the  case  in  London  by  Kev.  Dr.  Scliaff,  the  plan  of  electing  two 
members  of  each  body  into  the  other,  which  has  been  already  al- 
luded to,  was  proposed  and  adopted  by  both  of  the  Enghsh  Com- 
panies, and  subsequently  accepted  by  the  American  Commit- 
tee. The  difficulties  in  the  way  of  making  the  plan  effective, 
and  certain  complications  connected  with  the  transference  of  the 
pecuniary  rights  in  the  work  from  the  Eevisers  in  England  to  the 
Universities  having,  however,  led  to  its  abandonment,  further 
negotiations  were  held  with  the  Syndics  and  Delegates  of  the  two 
Presses  and  the  Kevision  Companies.  These  negotiations  led  to 
the  result  which  was  embodied  in  tlie  following  provisions  : 


MEMOEANDUM  OF  AGEEEMENT. 

(DRA.FT   SUBMITTED   BY   THE   UNIVERSITY   PRESSES,  AUG.  3.  1877.) 

As  a  preliminary  it  seems  desirable  to  state,  that  the  primary 
object  of  the  American  Committee  and  the  two  English  Com- 
panies is  assumed  to  be.  To  obtain  one  and  the  same  revision 


OF    THE    AMEEICAN    COMMITTEE    OF    EEYISION.  53 

of  the  present  English  Authorized  Version  of  the  Holy  Script- 
ures. 

For  this  end  the  following  arrangement  is  proposed: 

1.  The  English  Companies  will  continue  to  send  their  first  and 
provisional  version  to  the  American  Committee  from  time  to  time 
for  their  observations  thereon. 

2.  Such  observations  will  be  taken  (as  before)  into  careful  con- 
sideration by  the  English  Companies  in  connection  with  their 
second  revision.  The  English  Companies  will  then  communi- 
cate to  the  American  Committee  the  results  of  their  second  re- 
vision. 

3.  The  English  Companies  will  give  reasonable  time  for  the 
American  Committee  to  return  their  remarks  on  any  points  that 
they  may  think  important  in  these  last  communications ;  and, 
although  the  English  Companies  are  precluded  by  the  terms  of 
their  Constitution  from  undertaking  a  third  revision,  they  will 
nevertheless  take  such  remarks  of  the  American  Commit- 
tee into  special  consideration  before  the  conclusion  of  their 
labors. 

4.  If  any  differences  shall  still  remain,  the  American  Com- 
mittee will  yield  its  preferences  for  the  sake  of  harmony  ;  pro- 
vided that  such  differences  of  reading  and  rendering  as  the 
American  Committee  ma}^  represent  to  the  English  Companies  to 
be  of  special  importance,  be  distinctly  stated  either  in  the  Preface 
to  the  Revised  Version,  or  in  an  Appendix  to  the  volume,  during 
a  term  of  fourteen  years  from  the  date  of  publication,  unless  the 
American  Churches  shall  sooner  pronounce  a  deliberate  opinion 
upon  the  Revised  Version  with  the  view  of  its  being  taken  for 
public  use. 

5.  The  English  Companies  will  communicate  to  the  American 
Committee  copies  of  their  revision  in  its  final  form  before  it  is 
given  to  the  public. 

6.  All  communications  between  the  American  Committee  and 
the  two  English  Companies  relating  to  the  work  of  revision 
to  be  regarded  (as  heretofore)  as  made  in  the  strictest  confi- 
dence. 

7.  The  American  Committee  will  in  no  case  interfere  with  the 
interests  of  the  two  University  Presses  in  the  Revised  Version  as 
finally  settled. 

They  will  do  what  lies  in  their  power  to  promote  the  freest  cir- 


54  HISTOEICAL    ACCOUNT    OF    THE    WORK 

culation  of  the  editions  of  the  University  Presses  in  the  United 
States,  not  only  by  abstaining  from  issuing  any  editions  of  their 
own,  but  by  recognizing  the  editions  of  the  University  Presses  as 
the  authorized  editions,  and  in  all  proper  ways  favoring  such 
issues  and  discouraging  irresponsible  issues,  for  the  period  of 
fourteen  years. 

8.  If  the  Revised  Version  be  adopted  by  the  American 
Churches,  it  shall,  after  such  term  of  fourteen  years,  become 
public  property  in  the  United  States,  as  the  Authorized  Version 
is  now. 

Note. — By  the  term  "  American  Churches  "  is  understood  all  religious  bodies 
in  the  United  States  which  use  the  present  Authorized  Version  in  their  public 
services. 

This  arrangement,  which  was  proposed  in  August,  1877,  was  ac- 
cepted by  the  American  Committee  a  month  later — the  following 
resolution  having  at  that  time  been  passed  : 

(From  the  Minutes  of  the  American  Committee,  Sept.  28,  1877.) 

Resolved,  That  the  American  Bible  Revision  Committee  hereby 
accept  and  ratify  the  agreement  contained  in  the  Memorial  from 
Dr.  Cartmell  accompanying  his  letter  of  3d  of  August,  1877,  with 
the  understanding  in  regard  to  Article  Stli  that  the  American 
Committee  assume  no  responsibility  in  regard  to  the  action  of  the 
American  Churches,  or  in  regard  to  any  term  beyond  the  period 
of  fourteen  years. 

In  consequence  of  this  action,  and  as  carrying  out  what  was 
understood  by  botli  parties  to  be  intended  by  the  8th  Article  of 
the  agreement,  the  American  Committee  caused  the  statement 
which  follows  to  be  signed  by  their  President  and  Secretary,  and 
given  to  the  American  press  before  the  publication  of  the  Revised 
Version  of  the  New  Testament. 

"The  American  Committee  of  Bible  Tlevision  hereby  announce 
to  the  American  public  that  only  those  editions  of  the  New  Revis- 
ion, including  marginal  renderings,  which  are  published  or  ap- 
proved by  the  University  Presses  of  England  will  be  recognized 
by  us  as  the  authorized  editions." 

The  agreement  thus  finally  made  between  the  two  bodies  of  Re- 
visers secured  some  important  results.  It  led  to  the  utmost  effort, 
consistent  with  due  regard  for  honest  convictions,  to  reach  an  en- 


OF    THE    AMERICAN    COMMITTEE    OF    REVISION.  55 

tirely  harmonious  conclusion  in  all  cases.     It  prevented  all  possi- 
bility of  a  twofold  Eevision ;  and,  in  case  the  Authorized  Version 
should  be  given  up  and  the  new  work  preferred,  it  continued  to 
the  churches  of  both  nations  one  and  the  same  English  trans- 
lation of  the  Scriptures.     It  guarded  the  public  from  irrespon- 
sible and  imperfect  editions,  with  all  their   errors,  by  establish- 
ing a  single  standard  with  which  all  must  be  compared,  and  to 
which  all  that  would  hope  for  success  must  conform.     It  freed 
the  book  from  all  restrictions  from  copyright  in  this  country,  and 
made  it  a  gift  to  the  people.     A  large  proportion  of  the  sugges- 
tions of  the  American  Committee  were  adopted  and   embodied 
in  the  Eevised  Version.     Many  others,  which  were  not  adopted 
in  their  exact  words,  were  inserted  m  a  modified  form  which  satis- 
factorily expressed  the  American  views.     A  considerable  number 
of  those  which  were  not  thus  incorporated  in  the  text  of  the  book 
were  not  deemed  by  the  American  Eevisers  of  sufficient  import- 
ance to  render  it  necessary  to  insist  upon  them.     In  cases,  how- 
ever, where  such  importance  was  strongly  felt  by  the  American 
Committee,  they  were,  in  accordance  with  the  agreement,  dis- 
tinctly recorded  in  an  Appendix,  which  the  Enghsh  Eevisers  and 
the  University  Presses  obligated  themselves  to  publish  in  all  their 
editions.     The  reader  of  the  Eevised  Version  will  discover  in  the 
Appendix  only  a  very  small  part  of  the  results  of  the  work  of  the 
American    Committee.       These   results    are    found    eveiywhere 
throughout  the  entire  book. 

It  may  be  proper  here  to  remark,  that  the  heading  of  the  Ameri- 
can Appendix  to  the  Eevised  Version  of  the  New  Testament, 
which  was  prepared  by  the  Committee  and  forwarded  with  it  to 
England,  was  as  follows  : 

The  American  N.  T.  Eevision  Company,  having  in  many  cases 
yielded  their  preference  for  certain  readings  and  renderings,  pre- 
sent the  following  instances  in  which  they  differ  from  the  Enghsh 
Company,  as  in  their  view  of  sufficient  importance  to  be  appended 
to  the  revision,  in  accordance  with  an  understanding  between  the 
Companies. 

This  form  sets  forth  more  precisely  the  character  of  the  Ap- 
pendix, and  the  design  in  confining  it  within  narrow  hmits,  than 
the  one  which  was  substituted  for  it,  and  whicn  appears  in  the 
New  Testament  as  pubhshed. 


56     HISTORICAL  ACCOUNT  AMERICAN  COMMITTEE    OF    REVISION. 

The  work  of  the  American  New  Testament  Company  continued 
until  the  autumn  of  1880  ;  that  of  the  Old  Testament  Company 
till  the  close  of  the  year  1884.  The  whole  Bible,  after  these 
twelve  years  of  labor,  appears  in  its  Revised  English  Version,  at 
this  time,  before  the  people  of  Great  Britain  and  America.  This 
Revised  Version  is  now  a  fact  in  histor3^  Those  who  have 
labored  in  the  preparation  of  it  have  carefully  and  conscientiously 
examined  and  re-examined  every  verse  and  sentence  and  word. 
They  now  commit  it  to  the  English-speaking  world.  That  it  will 
meet  unfavorable  criticism — sometimes  severe,  sometimes  thought- 
less, sometimes  from  the  conservative,  and  sometimes  from  the 
l^rogressive  side — as  a  part  of  it  has  already  met  such  criticism, 
they  do  not  doubt.  But  they  entrust  it  to  the  future,  knowing 
that  the  book  will  live,  while  the  critics  will  die,  and  wishing  only 
that  their  labors  may  contribute,  in  this  generation  and  the  coming 
ones,  to  make  the  Scriptures  clearer  in  their  true  meaning  to  all 
men  of  the  English  race. 

Whatever  may  be  the  final  result  of  their  work,  the  members 
of  the  Committee  Avill  find  an  abundant  reward  for  the  years 
spent  upon  it  in  tlie  memory  of  their  common  studies  and  their 
long-continued  and  friendly  association. 


The  Committee  desire  to  record,  in  this  review  of  their  labors, 
their  acknowledgment  of  the  great  service  rendered  to  the  cause 
of  Revision  by  their  President,  Dr.  Philip  Schaff.  His  untiring 
energy  and  constant  devotion  to  the  interests  of  the  work,  from 
its  inception  to  its  close,  deserve  the  thanks  of  all  who  have  co- 
operated in  any  way  in  the  preparation  of  the  Revised  Version, 
and  also  of  all  Avho  shall  find  in  it  help  and  light  in  their  reading 
of  the  Word  of  God.  It  was  owing  to  him,  more  than  to  auy 
other,  that  the  work  was  undertaken  in  this  country,  and  to  him 
likewise  is  largely  due  the  success  with  which  the  means  for  car- 
rying it  forward  have  been  secured. 


MEMORIAL  PAPERS. 

It  is  believed  that  those  who  have  aided  in  the  work  of  the 
Committee,  and  all  friends  of  the  Revision,  will  be  interested  in 
the  following  commemorative  papers  respecting  some  of  those 
who  were  engaged  in  the  work,  but  were  removed  by  death,  either 
before  the  completion  of  the  New  Testament  portion  of  it,  or  be- 
fore the  publication  of  the  entire  Revised  Version.  They  have 
accordingly  been  inserted  in  this  volume  at  this  place,  between 
the  Record  of  the  work  itself  and  the  account  of  the  generous  aid 
furnished  by  many  benevolent  friends,  who  enabled  the  Commit- 
tee to  carry  it  forward. 


MEMORIAL   PAPERS. 


DR.  HACKETT. 

[From  the  Minutes,  Nov.  26,  1875,  p,  89.] 

A  committee  consisting  of  Drs.  Kendrick,  Woolsey  and  Abbot 
was  appointed  to  draft  a  minute  commemorative  of  our  associate, 
Br.  Hackett,  deceased  since  our  last  meeting.  They  prepared  the 
following  paper,  which  was  ordered  to  be  placed  on  our  records 
and  a  copy  to  be  given  to  the  press  for  publication : — 

"  With  profound  regret  this  Committee  have  to  record  the  death, 
since  their  last  session,  of  the  Eev.  Dr.  Horatio  Balch  Hackett, 
one  of  our  country's  most  eminent  biblical  scholars  and  a  loved 
and  honored  member  of  this  board  of  revision.  Dr.  Hackett  was 
born  in  Salisbury,  Mass.,  December  27, 1808,  Having  been  grad- 
uated with  high  honor  from  Amherst  College  and  Andover  Theo- 
logical Semmary,lie  served  for  four  years,  first  as  adjunct  Professor 
of  the  Latin  and  Greek  Languages  and  Literature  in  Brown  Uni- 
versity, afterwards  for  many  years  as  Professor  of  Biblical  Liter- 
ature in  Newton  Theological  Institution,  and  during  the  last  six 
years  as  Professor  of  New  Testament  Exegesis  in  the  Rochester 
Theological  Seminary.  In  all  these  positions  his  varied  duties 
were  discharged  with  eminent  ability. 

"As  a  biblical  scholar  he  rose  rapidly  to  take  rank  with  the 
ablest  scholars  in  our  own  and  other  lands.  As  a  teacher  he  was 
no  less  distinguished.  Uniting  exact  learning  and  vigorous  method 
with  a  devout  reverence  for  the  sacred  Word,  and  an  intense  en- 
thusiasm that  kindled  into  life  even  the  driest  grammatical  details, 
he  made  his  lecture-room,  to  all  who  frequented  it,  a  place  of  un- 
wonted quickening  and  inspiration.  As  an  author,  his  various 
contributions  to  sacred  literature  have  been  exceedingly  valuable. 
His  Commentary  on  the  Acts  is  regarded  abroad  as  well  as  at 
home  as  of,  standard  excellence  ;  and  his  enlarged  edition  (under- 
taken in  conjunction  with  Dr.  Ezra  Abbot)  of  Smith's  Dictionary 
of  the  Bible,  to  the  English  edition  of  which  he  was  a  contributor, 
has  greatly  enhanced  the  value  of  that  excellent  work,  and  won 
for  him  the  lasting  gratitude  of  students  of  the  Scriptures. 

"  Dr.  Hackett  came  to  feel  deeply  the  need  of  improving  our  ex- 
cellent standard  version  of  the  Bible.     For  several  years  he  lent 


60  HISTORICAL    ACCOUNT    OF    THE    WORK 

his  valuable  services  to  the  American  Bible  Union,  and  when  the 
American  Board  of  Revisers  was  organized  to  co-operate  with  thi3 
English  Revision  Committee,  he  entered  heartily  into  the  work  as 
a  member  of  the  New  Testament  section  of  our  body.  Though 
his  increasingly  delicate  health  forbade  his  uniform  attendance  at 
the  meetings,  yet  his  presence  was  always  warmly  greeted  by  his 
colleagues  in  revision,  and  to  his  opinions,  expressed  with  invari- 
able modesty,  w'as  accorded  the  weight  due  to  ripe  learning  and 
an  admirably  balanced  judgment. 

"In  his  personal  character  he  was  no  less  estimable.  Retiring 
as  he  was  in  disposition  and  living  in  scholarly  seclusion,  few 
knew  how  deep  and  warm  were  his  affections,  and  how  tender  his 
sympathies ;  how  refined  were  his  tastes  and  how  varied  his  culture ; 
how  wide  was  his  outlook,  and  how  just  were  his  judgments  of  pub- 
lic affairs ;  how  fervid  was  his  patriotism,  and  how  humble  and 
unaffected  was  his  piety ;  in  short,  what  a  wealth  of  noble  and 
Christian  quaUties  lay  hidden  beneath  that  quiet  exterior.  In  all 
his  relations  as  a  man,  a  teacher,  a  scholar,  and  a  Christian  he 
commanded  at  once  love  and  veneration,  and  his  later  pupils  were 
wont  to  trace  in  his  gentle  and  chastened  enthusiasm  a  resemblance 
to  the  '  Beloved  Disciple '  whose  writings  he  so  genially  expounded. 
Nobly  has  he  accomplished  his  earthly  work,  and  in  the  higlier 
sphere  to  which  death  has  translated  him,  he  is  enjoying,  we 
doubt  not,  the  fruits  of  a  life  of  faithful  consecration  to  the  serv- 
ice of  the  Church  and  the  Church's  Lord.  With  heartfelt  grati- 
tude to  Him  Avho  has  given  to  the  Church  the  blessing  of  such  a 
life  we  place  on  record  this  imperfect  tribute  to  his  high  scholarly 
and  personal  excellence." 

Jlesolved,  That  the  Secretary  of  this  Committee  be  requested  to 
transmit  to  the  family  of  Dr.  Hackett  a  copy  of  the  above  minute, 
with  the  assurance  of  our  tender  sympathy  with  them  in  their 
sore  bereavement,  and  our  prayer  that  the  Heavenly  Comforter  may 
impart  to  them  His  abundant  consolations. 

George  E.  Day,  Sec. 


PROFESSOR  TAYLER  LEWIS. 

[From  the  Minutes,  Jan.  25,  1878,  pp.  132,  134.] 

42  Bible  House,  New  York,  Jan.  25, 1878. 
The  following  paper  respecting  the  life  and  services  of  the  late 
Prof.  Tayler  Lewis  was  adopted  unanimously.     It  \\as  also  voted 


OF    THE    AMERICAN"    COMMITTEE    OF    REVISION.  61 

that  it  be  recorded  in  the  minutes  and  published  in  the  religious 
newspapers : 

"  The  death  of  so  distinguished  a  scholar  as  Dr.  Lewis  calls  for 
a  passing  tribute  from  his  brethren  of  the  American  Bible  Re- 
vision Committee.  While  his  physical  infirmities  limited  his  co- 
operation in  our  work  to  the  occasional  communication  of  written 
suggestions,  these  were  always  highly  prized,  and  his  interest  in 
the  progress  and  success  of  the  work  was  by  many  signs  known 
to  be  deep  and  genuine.  It  was  a  source  of  much  regret  to  the 
Old  Testament  Company  that  they  could  not  enjoy  more  frequently 
and  abundantly  the  results  of  his  prolonged  and  profound  biblical 
and  philological  studies. 

"From  the  profession  of  the  law,  which  he  had  entered,  Dr. 
Lewis  early  turned  to  the  more  congenial  work  of  a  scholar, 
teacher,  and  man  of  letters.  For  more  than  forty  years  he  was  by 
profession  a  teacher,  and  was  nearly  the  whole  of  this  period  con- 
nected first  with  the  Uniyersity  of  New  York  and  later  with 
Union  College.  His  special  department  was  that  of  the  Greek 
language  and  literature  ;  and  after  disabling  infirmities  cut  him 
off  from  the  ordinary  work  of  the  recitation  room,  his  own  genius 
and  enthusiasm  continued  to  inspire  class  after  class  in  the  lecture 
room,  and  in  his  parlors,  with  something  of  his  own  admiration 
for  Greek  literature  and  philosophy.  His  studies  in  Hebrew  and 
the  cognate  languages  began  early  and  were  prosecuted  with  char- 
acteristic energy  and  with  rich  results.  His  well-worn  Hebrew 
Bible  bears  witness,  through  his  memoranda,  to  the  frequency 
with  which  he  had  many  years  ago  re-read  it  in  course.  And  he 
left  behind  him  numei'ous  and  carefully  elaborated  comments  on 
many  of  its  difficult  passages.  The  Committee  cannot  withhold 
the  expression  of  the  wish  that  these  notes,  or  a  judicious  selec- 
tion from  them,  may  yet  be  published,  in  addition  to  the  biblical 
studies  which  he  had  given  to  the  public  during  his  life.  Dr. 
Lewis  was  no  recluse.  In  philosophical,  political  and  theological 
discussion  he  was  deeply  interested,  and  with  unusual  versatility 
and  power  took  ready  j)art  in  such  debates.  He  was  not  merely 
a  loyal  and  valiant,  but  an  aggressive,  champion  of  what  he  held 
to  be  the  truth.  Especially  were  all  his  energies  and  resources 
ready  for  the  most  prompt  and  vigorous  use  in  maintaining  the 
supremacy  of  the  Word  of  God  over  all  human  thinking  and 
living.  With  him  has  passed  away  one  who  in  the  variety  and 
extent  of  his  resources  and  attainments  has  reflected  honor  upon 


62  HISTORICAL    ACCOUNT    OF    THE    WORK 

Americau   sclioLirship,  and  whose  memor}'  will  be    cherished   bj 
all  who  appreciate  his  faithful  labors  for  Christ." 


DK.  NATHAN  BISHOP. 

[From  the  Minutes,  Sept.  25,  1880,  p.  148.] 

The  following  paper,  prepared  by  Dr.  Schaff,  commemoratiye  of 
the  late  Hon.  Nathan  Bishop,  LL.D.,  was  adopted  : 

"  The  American  Revision  Committee  record  with  profound  sor- 
row the  death  of  Dr.  Nathan  Bishop,  Chairman  of  the  Committee 
on  Finance,  who  w^as  called  to  his  reward  August  7,  1880,  at  Sara- 
toga, aged  seventy-two  years. 

"  We  share  in  the  universal  esteem  for  his  pure  and  consistently 
Christian  character,  his  amiable  and  catholic  spirit,  his  sound 
judgment,  his  generous  liberality  in  promoting  every  good  cause. 
He  was  a  man  who  delighted  in  doing  good  without  ostentation, 
from  principle  and  from  pure  love  to  his  Lord  and  his  fellow-men. 
He  took  a  deep  and  intelligent  interest  in  the  revision  movement 
from  the  start,  and  never  doubted  for  a  moment  its  Unal  success. 
He  was  the  most  liberal  and  cheerful  contributor  toward  the  ex- 
penses of  our  Committee,  and  considered  it  an  honor  and  privilege 
to  promote  a  cause  so  sacred  and  important  to  all  readers  of  the 
Word  of  God.  His  name  is  identified  with  the  labors  of  this 
Committee,  and  his  memory  will  be  cherished  by  all  who  person- 
ally knew  him. 

"  Resolved,  That  a  copy  of  this  minute  bo  sent  to  the  widow  of 
Dr.  Bishop." 


DR.  WASHBURN. 

[From  the  Minutes,  Oct.  28,  1881,  p.  1G3.1 

The  following  memorial  paper,  prepared  by  Bishop  Lee,  on  the 
death  of  Rev.  Dr.  Washburn,  was  read  and  adopted,  and  the  Sec- 
retary was  directed  to  send  a  copy  of  the  same  to  his  widow,  and 
also  to  the  public  press  : 

"  Since  the  conclusion  of  the  labors  of  the  New  Testament  Com- 
pany, it  has  pleased  Almighty  God  to  take  out  of  this  world  one 
of  their  number,  the  Reverend  Edward  A.  Washburn,  D.D.,  Rector 
of  Calvary  Church,  in  the  City  of  New  York. 

"  It  is  the  desire  of  those  associated  so  long  with  him  in  this 


OF    THE    AMERICAN"    COMMITTEE    OF    REVISION.  63 

important  work  to  place  upon  their  records  an  expression  of  their 
high  estimate  of  the  character  of  their  lamented  fellow-laborer, 
and  of  their  affectionate  regard  for  his  memory. 

"  Dr.  Washburn  was  a  man  whose  marked  ability  and  noble 
qualities  commanded  universal  respect,  while  his  ready  sympathy 
and  kindliness  endeared  him  to  a  large  circle  of  friends.  He  was 
a  scholar,  assiduous  and  well  trained,  whose  powerful  mind  readily 
grasped  and  fed  upon  knowledge,  both  secular  and  sacred.  As  a 
faithful  pastor  and  an  instructive,  forcible  preacher,  he  stood  in 
the  foremost  rank.  In  the  pursuit  of  truth  he  was  honest  and 
earnest,  and  in  the  avowal  of  his  convictions  fearless  and  out- 
spoken. In  his  whole  intercourse  he  was  remarkably  transparent, 
open  and  genuine — a  man  to  be  admired,  trusted  and  loved. 

"  In  the  present  revision  of  the  English  Bible  his  interest  was 
enhsted  from  the  beginning.  He  took  an  early  and  decided 
stand  as  its  advocate,  and  the  first  public  meeting  in  this  country 
in  belialf  of  the  undertaking  was  held  in  his  church.  Disease, 
against  which  he  manfully  struggled  through  a  large  part  of  his 
life,  drove  him  to  a  foreign  land  in  search  of  health  soon  after  the 
labors  of  the  Committee  commenced,  and  after  his  return  the  same 
cause  often  interrupted  his  attendance  at  our  meetings.  It  has 
been  a  source  of  great  regret  to  his  associates  that  they  lost  so 
much  of  the  advantage  that  would  have  accrued  from  his  more 
frequent  co-operation.  But  when  he  could  be  with  us  his  pres- 
ence was  gladly  welcomed,  and  his  suggestions  highly  valued. 
Upon  his  connection  with  this  work  we  look  back  with  satisfaction 
and  gratitude.  He  was  not  permitted  to  hail  the  public  appear- 
ance of  the  volume  to  which  he  had  given  so  much  time  and 
thought,  but  its  saving  truths  were  dear  to  his  heart,  and  we  can- 
not doubt  through  divine  grace  were  instrumental  in  preparing 
him  for  the  event  Avhich  came  so  unexpectedly. 

"  Removed  in  the  fulness  of  his  ripened  powers  and  in  the  height 
of  his  usefulness,  his  end  might  seem  to  us  premature,  but  we  bow 
in  submission  to  His  will  who  doeth  all  things  well." 


DPw.  BURR. 

[From  the  Minutes,  Oct.  26,  1882,  pp.  175-177.] 

The  following    tribute  to  the  memory  of  the  Rev.  Jonathan 
Kelsey  Burr,  D.D.,  of  the  New  Testament  Company,  deceased 


64  HISTOBICAL    ACCOUNT    OF    THE    WORK 

since  our  last  meeting,  presented  by  Dr.  Strong,  was  unanimously 
adopted,  and  directed  to  be  placed  upon  our  minutes,  with  the 
request  to  Dr.  Strong  to  communicate  the  same  to  the  surviving 
members  of  Dr.  Burr's  family  : 

"  The  Rev.  Jonathan  Kelsey  Burr,  D.D.,  a  member  of  the  New 
Testament  Company  of  the  American  Bible  Revision  Committee, 
who  died  April  24,  1882,  was  born  in  Middletown,  Conn.,  Septem- 
ber 21, 1825,  and  graduated  from  the  Wesleyan  University  in  1845, 
and  in  1846  was  a  student  in  the  Union  Theological  Seminary. 
"With  the  exception  of  the  last  two  years  of  his  life,  when  he  was 
gradually  failing  with  consumption,  he  spent  the  intermediate 
years  in  the  active  ministry  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
occupying  several  of  the  most  important  pulpits  within  the  bounds 
of  the  New  Jersey  and  the  Newark  Conferences.  As  a  preacher 
and  pastor  he  held  a  high  rank  in  his  denomination,  and  was  uni- 
versally respected  and  beloved  for  his  scholarly  attainments,  his 
uniform  urbanity,  and  his  diligent  habits.  He  was  the  friend  of 
the  rich  and  the  poor  alike,  and  was  equally  welcome  and  at 
home  in  the  elegant  mansion  and  in  the  humblest  dwelling.  He 
was  a  man  of  extensive  reading,  of  relined  taste,  and  of  thorough 
culture,  as  well  as  of  deep  but  undemonstrative  piety.  Modesty 
combined  with  activity  was  a  marked  feature  of  his  character, 
and  his  conduct  in  every  relation  of  life  evinced  a  genuine  hearti- 
ness and  an  earnest  sobriety  which  were  the  result  of  much  self- 
discipline,  a  just  estimate  of  his  own  powers  and  duties,  and  a 
manly  integrity  of  purpose.  His  literary  quahfication  for  the 
position  wliich  he  filled  among  us  with  so  much  ability,  credit  and 
acceptableness,  was  also  shown  in  a  very  excellent  series  of  anno- 
tations on  the  book  of  Job,  and  in  occasional  contributions  to  the 
religious  journals.  His  estimable  widow  has  since  deceased,  and 
two  promising  sons  are  thus  left  entire  orphans.  We  record  this 
memorial  in  token  of  our  appreciation  of  his  character  and  seiw- 
ices,  and  our  sympathy  with  his  surviving  friends." 


DR.  KRAUTH. 

At  the  regular  monthly  meeting  of  the  Old  Testament  Company 
of  the  American  Bible  Revision  Committee  lield  in  the  Bible  House, 
New  York,  February  23d,  1883,  the  following  tribute  to  tlie  memory 
of  our  late  associate,  the  Rev.  Dr.  Charles  P.  Krauth,  Yice-Provost 


OP^   THE    AMERICAN    COMMITTEE    OF    REVISION.  65 

of  the  University  of  Pennsylvania,  prepared  by  the  Kev.  Dr. 
Chambers,  was  adopted  and  directed  to  be  presented  to  the  whole 
Committee  at  their  next  annual  meeting  in  order  to  be  placed 
upon  their  records.  George  E.  Day,  Secretary. 

Charles  Porterfield  Krauth,  D.D.,  LL.  D. 
Born  March  17th,  1823,  in  Martinsburg,  Va. 
Died  January  2d,  1883,  in  Philadelphia,  Pa. 

His  paternal  grandfather  came  to  this  country  from  Germany 
in  the  latter  part  of  the  last  century,  and  was  teacher  and  organ- 
ist in  one  of  the  Reformed  churches.  His  father,  Charles  Philip 
Krauth  (1797-1867),  was  successively  pastor  of  Lutheran  churches 
in  Martinsburg  and  Philadelphia,  President  of  Pennsylvania  Col- 
lege at  Gettysburg,  and  Professor  in  the  Theological  Seminary  at 
the  same  place.  Our  friend  and  associate  was  his  oldest  son,  and 
consequently  enjoyed  great  advantages  in  his  early  training.  He 
ivas  graduated  in  1839  from  the  college  of  which  his  father  was 
president,  and  immediately  commenced  theological  studies  under 
Drs.  Schmucker  and  Schmidt.  Having  concluded  these  with  high 
honor,  he  was  ordained  in  1842,  and  became  i:>astor  of  a  church  in 
Baltimore.  Subsequently  he  held  the  same  office  in  Winchester, 
Va,,  and  in  Pittsburgh,  Pa.  In  1859  he  was  called  to  St.  Mark's 
Lutheran  Church,  Philadelphia,  and  two  years  afterward  became 
editor  of  the  Lutheran  and  3Iisswnary ,  through  which  he  made 
himself  widely  felt  throughout  the  religious  press.  In  1864  he 
was  appointed  Professor  of  Theology  and  Church  History  in  the 
new  Seminary  then  established  in  Philadelphia.  In  1868  he  was 
elected  to  the  chair  of  Moral  and  Intellectual  Philosophy  in  the 
University  of  Pennsylvania,  and  five  years  afterward  was  made 
Vice-Provost  of  the  institution.  In  the  discharge  of  the  duties 
of  these  various  offices,  together  with  occasional  preaching  of  the 
Word,  he  continued  until  his  death,  constantly  gi-owing  in  influ- 
ence and  usefulness  as  time  developed  his  rare  qualities  in  guid- 
ing and  stimulating  the  young  men  under  his  charge.  But  his 
earthly  tabernacle  proved  frailer  than  one  would  have  supposed 
from  his  commanding  presence.  He  sought  to  gain  relief  from 
growing  infirmities  by  a  visit  to  Europe  in  the  year  1880,  but  the 
improvement  was  superficial  and  short-lived,  and  on  the  2d  day 
of  this  year,  after  an  illness  of  a  fortnight,  he  quietly  fell  asleep  in 
Jesus. 

Our  friend  did  not  round  out  the  usual  measure  of  man's  days, 
5 


QQ  HISTORICAL    ACCOUNT    OF    THE    WORK 

but  he  performed  enough  work  to  satisfy  the  most  exacting  de- 
mand. His  course,  whether  in  the  pulpit,  or  the  editorial  room, 
or  the  professorial  chair,  was  one  of  incessant  activity.  His  pub- 
lished writings  are  numerous.  They  consist  not  oulj^  of  such 
elaborate  volumes  as  the  Conservative  Reformation  and  its  Tlteol- 
ogij,  the  translation  of  Tholuck's  Commentai-y  on  the  Gospel  of  John, 
the  enlargement  of  Flemiug's  Vocabulary  of  PhilosopJiy,  a  new 
edition  of  Berkeley's  Philosojjhieal  Writings,  but  also  of  various 
minor  treatises  touching  questions  in  Theology  and  Church  His- 
tory, by  which  he  exerted  a  vast  influence  in  his  own  denomina- 
tion. His  mind,  strong  and  versatile  by  nature,  was  assiduously 
cultivated  from  early  youth.  His  studies  were  confined  mainly  to 
theology  in  its  various  branches,  to  philosophy  and  literature  in 
its  wide  acceptation.  He  had  accumulated  a  very  large  private 
library  (14,000  volumes)  which  was  a  selection  as  well  as  a  collec- 
tion. He  was,  consequently,  unusually  well  informed  on  all  mat- 
ters relating  to  his  chosen  sphere,  being  a  careful  as  well  as  a 
constant  reader.  This  fact  made  him  a  formidable  antagonist  in 
any  question  respecting  the  history  of  opinion. 

In  his  theological  views  he  was  a  Lutheran  of  the  Lutherans, 
being  a  zealous  defender  and  maintainer  of  the  Augustana,  pure 
and  simple,  and  he  headed  the  reaction  which  has  been  going  on 
for  a  generation  in  our  country  against  the  influences  which  were 
thought  to  assail  the  integrity  or  the  authority  of  the  venerable 
Confession  of  Augsburg.  But  while  he  strove  with  all  his  might 
for  the  preservation  of  Lutheran  doctrine  and  order,  he  cherished 
a  catholic  spirit,  and  took  a  cordial  interest  in  the  prosperity  of 
all  evangelical  Christians.  He  became  a  member  of  this  body 
at  its  commencement,  and  although  hindered,  sometimes  by 
professional  engagements,  at  others  l^y  the  state  of  his  health, 
from  being  as  regular  in  attendance  as  was  desirable,  his  presence 
was  always  an  advantage,  and  his  large  acquaintance  with  the 
early  English  versions  of  the  Scriptures,  and  with  the  best  idioms 
of  our  tongue,  made  his  suggestions  often  of  very  great  value  in 
the  settlement  of  a  disputed  issue.  In  personal  intercourse  he 
was  one  of  the  most  delightful  of  companions,  genial,  courteous, 
full  of  resources,  sparkling  with  wit  and  anecdote,  yet  always  pre- 
serving the  elevated  tone  of  a  Christian  gentleman.  It  would 
have  been  gratifying  if  he  had  been  spared  to  witness  the  termi- 
nation of  our  lal^ors,  and  rejoice  with  us  in  a  successful  result. 
But  the  Lord  saw  fit  to  order  events  otherwise,  and  we  bow  in 


OF    THE    AMERICAIN"    COMMITTEE    OF    REVISION.  67 

submission  to  His  holy  will,  taking  a  melancholy  pleasure  in  put- 
ting on  record  this  testimonial  to  our  departed  brother.  His 
death  is  a  great  loss  not  only  to  the  important  religious  body  of 
which  he  was  a  shining  ornament,  but  also  to  the  whole  Church  of 
Christ  in  this  land,  and  to  the  republic  of  letters.  Our  country 
has  produced  few  men  who  united  in  their  own  persons  so  many 
of  the  excellences  which  distinguish  the  scholar,  the  theologian, 
the  exegete,  the  debater,  and  the  leader  of  his  brethren,  as  did 
our  accomplished  associate.  His  learning  did  not  smother  his 
genius,  nor  did  his  philosophical  attainments  impair  the  simplicity 
of  his  faith.  All  gifts  and  all  acquisitions  were  sedulously  made 
subservient  to  the  Gospel  of  Christ.  He  illustrated  his  teachings 
by  his  life,  and  has  left  behind  him  a  memory  precious  and  fra- 
grant not  only  to  his  own  large  communion  but  to  multitudes 
beyond  its  pale. 


EZRA  ABBOT,  D.D.,  LL.D. 

Bom  in  Jackson,  Maine,  April  28,  1819. 
Died  in  Cambridge,  Mass.,  March  21,  1884. 

^^  Tlie  grass  icithereth,  and  the  flower  falleth  ;  hut  the  icord  of  the  Lord  aUdeth 

forever." 

In  the  death  of  Professor  Abbot  the  New  Testament  Revision 
Company  are  summoned  a  third  time,  since  the  completion  of 
their  work,  to  mourn  the  departure  of  one  of  their  number.  With 
their  associates  of  the  Old  Testament  Company  they  would  rever- 
ently bow  to  the  Divine  appointment,  and  thoughtfully  take  to 
heart  its  admonitions. 

The  secluded  life  of  Dr.  Abbot,  and  his  singularly  modest  and 
retiring  disposition,  rendered  him  almost,  if  not  quite,  a  stranger 
to  every  one  of  us  till  we  entered  on  our  work  together  in  these 
rooms.  In  general  deliberations  respecting  matters  of  business, 
and  particularly  in  those  discussions,  alike  animated  and  delicate, 
which  involved  our  relations  to  the  English  Revisers  and  the 
University  Presses,  his  voice  was  heard  but  seldom.  Yet  when- 
ever he  spoke,  his  characteristic  clearness  of  apprehension,  his 
accurate  and  complete  recollection  of  facts,  his  judicial  impar- 
tiality and  dispassionateness,  and  above  all  his  personal  willing- 
ness to  become  anything  or  nothing,  if  so  be  the  Word  of  God  in 


68    HISTORICAL  ACCOUNT  AMERICAN    COMMITTEE    OF    REVISION. 

its  purity  might  liave  the  freer  course,  seldom  failed  to  become 
manifest. 

His  sphere  of  conspicuous  service,  however,  was  the  Revision 
work.  Always  one  of  the  first  in  his  place  at  the  table,  and  one 
of  the  last  to  quit  it,  he  brought  with  him  thither  the  results  of 
careful  preparation.  His  suggestions  were  seldom  the  prompt- 
ings of  the  moment.  Hence  they  always  commanded  considera- 
tion ;  often  secured  instant  adoption.  Well  versed  in  the  re- 
sources of  our  ancestral  tongue,  gifted  with  an  ear  for  its  rhythm, 
and  trained  to  a  nice  discrimination  in  his  use  of  it,  he  rendered 
appreciable  service  in  securing  for  the  new  translation  certain 
feUcities  of  expression  to  which  its  critics,  amid  their  clamorous 
censure  of  its  defects,  have  hitherto  failed  to  render  due  recog- 
nition. But  it  was  in  questions  affecting  the  Greek  text  that  Dr. 
Abbot's  exceptional  gifts  and  attainments  were  pre-eminently 
helpful.  Several  of  his  essays  on  debated  passages,  appended  to 
the  printed  reports  of  our  proceedings  which  were  forwarded  from 
time  to  time  to  the  brethren  in  England,  are  among  the  most 
thorough  discussions  of  the  sort  which  are  extant,  won  immediate 
respect  for  American  scholarship  in  this  department,  and  had  no 
small  influence  in  determining  that  form  of  the  sacred  text  which 
will  ultimately,  we  beUeve,  find  acceptance  with  all  Christian 
scholars. 

To  his  distinction  as  a  scholar.  Dr.  Abbot  added  rare  excellence 
as  a  Christian.  Such  chastened  sweetness  of  disposition,  such 
disciplined  regard  for  the  sensibilities  of  his  associates,  such 
studied  generosity  in  debate,  such  patient  deference  when  over- 
ruled, such  magnanimous  equanimity  in  victory  as  w^ere  habitual 
with  him,  were  never  siirpassed  among  us.  Differing  from  the 
rest  of  us  as  he  did  in  some  of  his  theological  tenets,  his  Christ- 
like temper  rendered  him  a  brother  beloved,  and  lends  a  heavenly 
lustre  to  his  memory. 

We,  his  survivors,  desire  to  place  on  record  our  affectionate 
tribute  to  his  worth,  and  to  offer  to  his  bereaved  kindred  a  tender 
expression  of  our  sympathy. 

Revision  Rooms,  42  and  44  Bible  House,  New  York, 
Fbiday,  April  25,  1884. 

The  above  minute,  presented  by  Dr.  Thayer,  was  unanimously 
adopted  by  the  Committee. 


REPORT    OF   THE    COMMITTEE    ON   FINANCE 
AND  LIST  OF  DONORS  AND  SUBSCRIBERS. 


ORGANIZATION  OF  THE  FINANCE  COMMITTEE. 

The  Revision  of  the  English  Scriptures  for  public  use  was  undertaken  as  a 
labor  of  love,  without  any  prospect  of  reward  except  the  consciousness  of  doing  a 
good  work  for  the  benefit  of  English-speaking  Christendom.  But  no  enterprise 
of  such  magnitude,  embracing  so  many  workers  and  extending  through  nearly  four- 
teen years,  can  be  accomplished  without  considerable  expense  for  traveling,  print- 
ing, clerical  aid,  books,  room-rent  and  incidentals.  The  expenses  of  the  English 
Committee,  to  the  extent  of  $100,000  and  more,  were  assumed  at  an  early  stage  by 
the  University  Presses  of  Oxford  and  Cambridge  in  consideration  of  the  exclusive 
right  of  publication  within  her  Majesty's  dominions.  The  expenses  of  the  Ameri- 
can Committee  were  raised  in  our  usual  American  fashion  by  voluntary  contri- 
butions.    No  aid  was  ever  asked  or  offered  from  any  foreign  quarter. 

For  four  years  the  contributions  were  solicited  by  the  President  and  a  few 
members  of  the  Committee,  Professor  Short  acting  as  Treasurer.  A  report  was 
made  from  time  to  time  to  contributors  in  parlor  meetings.  Some  kind  lay 
friends  volunteered  to  relieve  the  Committee  of  this  additional  burden  ;  and  in 
May,  1875,  a  Committee  of  Finance  in  co-operation  with  the  Revision  Committee 
was  organized. 

All  the  necessary  funds  for  the  Revision  work  have  been  raised,  first  by  solicit- 
ing donations,  and  afterward  in  the  more  convenient  way  of  offering  to  con- 
tributors of  $10  each  a  presentation  copy  of  the  Memorial  volume  of  the  New 
Testament.  The  responses  enabled  the  Committee  to  return  to  the  subscribers 
what  may  be  regarded  as  a  full  equivalent  for  their  contribution.  The  Memorial 
volumes  were  ordered  from  the  University  Presses  and  delivered  free  of  charge. 
They  are  gotten  up  in  the  very  best  style  of  printing  and  binding,  and  have  given 
universal  satisfaction.  The  Memorial  copies  will  increase  in  value  as  they  grow 
older  and  rarer. 

The  success  of  this  plan  induced  the  Finance  Committee  to  offer  by  a  circular, 
dated  January  3,  1882,  a  Memorial  Copy  of  the  Revised  Old  Testament,  bound  in 
levant  morocco,  to  every  contributor  of  $20  toward  meeting  the  expenses  for  the 
completion  of  the  work.  In  the  autumn  of  1884  another  circular  was  issued,  in- 
forming contributors  that  it  had  been  determined  to  bind  the  Memorial  copies  of 
the  Old  Testament  in  four  volumes,  and  that  the  Committee  could  offer  the  four- 
volume  copy  at  $30,  or  the  two-volume  copy  at  $25,  and  that  those  who  had 
hitherto  contributed  $20,  in  consideration  of  which  they  were  entitled  to  a  two- 
volume  copy,  could  increase  the  contribution  to  $30  for  the  other  copy,  if  that 
was  preferred.  The  answer  to  the  circulars  was  prompt  and  liberal.  The  result 
is  thought  to  be  sufficient  for  the  further  expenses.     If  there  should  be  a  balance 


70  DOCUMENTAEY   HISTORY  OF    THE 

left  in  the  treasury,  it  will  be  devoted  to  some  benevolent  object  connected  -with 
Bible  Revision  or  Bible  distribution. 

The  gentlemen  who  first  constituted  the  Finance  Committee,  or  who  afterward 
became  connected  with  it,  are  : 

Nathan  Bishop,  LL.D.,  New  York.     (D.  1880.) 

Rev.  William  Adams,  D.D.,  New  York.     (D.  1880.) 

Rev.  Thos.  D.  Anderson,  D.D.,  New  York.     (D.  1881.) 

Mr.  A.  S.  Barnes,  New  York. 

Mr.  M   C.  D.  Borden,  New  York. 

Mr.  Alexander  Brown,  Philadelphia. 

Mr.  Jas.  M.  Brown,  New  York. 

Mr.  Wm.  A.  Cauldwell,  New  York. 

Mr.  Wm.  E.  Dodge,  New  York.     (D.  1883.) 

Rev.  H.  Dyer,  D.D.,  New  York. 

Mr.  John  Elliott,  New  York. 

Judge  E.  L.  Fancher,  LL.D.,  New  York. 

Prof.  Wm.  Gammell,  LL.D.,  Providence,  R.  L 

Mr.  John  C.  Havemeyer,  New  York. 

Mr.  Morris  K.  Jesup,  New  York. 

Mr,  Francis  T.  King,  Baltimore,  Md. 

Rt.  Rev.  Henry  C.  Potter,  D.D.,  New  York. 

Mr.  Howard  Potter,  New  York. 

Mr.  S.  B.  Schiefifelin,  New  York. 

Mr.  Elliott  F.  Shepard,  New  York. 

Mr.  John  Sloane,  New  York. 

Mr.  Roswell  Smith,  New  York.     (Resigned  1881.) 

Rev.  R.  S.  Storrs,  D.D.,  Brooklyn,  N.  Y. 

Mr.  Andrew  L.  Taylor,  New  York. 

Mr.  Chas.  Tracy,  New  York.     (D.  1885.) 

Mr.  John  B.  Trevor,  New  York. 

Mr.  Alexander  Van  Rensselaer,  New  York.     (D.  1878.) 

Mr.  Samuel  D.  Warren,  Boston,  Mass. 

Mr.  Norman  White,  New  York.     (D.  1883.) 

Mr.  F.  S.  Winston,  New  York.    (D.  1885.) 

The  officers  of  the  Finance  Committee  have  been : 

Nathan  Bishop,  LL.D.,  Chairman  (died,  1880). 
Judge  E.  L.  Fancher,  LL.D.,  Chairman  (since  1880), 
Andrew  L.  Taylor,  Treasurer. 

The  Treasurer  reports  the  total  amount  of  contributions  (including  remission  of 
duties  and  other  items)  from  the  beginning  of  the  work  in  1872  to  May  11,  1883, 
as  $44,761.60. 

The  expenses  during  the  same  period  for  traveling,  for  clerk  hire,  for  office 
expenses,  for  printing,  and  for  books  liave  been  $35,225.60,  leaving  a  balance  in  the 
treasury  of  $9,535.94  on  ]\Iay  11,  1883,  on  which  date  tiie  account  was  examined 
and  certified  to  by  the  Auditing  Committee. 

The  supplemental  statement  of  the  Treasurer  from  May  11,  1883,  to  January 
29,  1885,  shows  total  receipts  to  that  date  $47,561.46,  and  total  payments 
$38,469.67,  and  a  balance  in  the  treasury  of  $9,091.79. 


AMERICAN    BIBLE    REVISION    COMMITTEE,  7l 

The  balance  in  hand  will  be  used  for  the  further  expenses  of  the  Committee, 
for  the  publication  of  a  Documentary  History,  and  for  the  purchase  of  Memorial 
copies  of  the  Revised  Old  Testament. 

The  following  resolution,  passed  unanimously  by  the  Revision  Committee,  finds 
an  appropriate  place  at  this  point : 

[From  the  Minutes,  Jan.  27,  1881,  p.  160.] 

Resolved,  That  the  American  Bible  Revision  Committee  recognize  and  acknowl- 
edge the  efficient  and  coi-dial  co-operation  which  has  been  given  to  their  work  by 
the  gratuitous  services  of  Mr.  Andrew  L.  Taylor,  and  hereby  record  their  thanks 
for  the  financial  furtherance  of  their  labors  due  to  his  ready  activity  as  theii 
Treasurer. 

This  acknowledgment  was  unanimously  adopted. 


BOOKS    PUBLISHED    BY 

OR  IN  CONNECTION  WITH 

THE   AMERICAN   REVISION   COMMITTEE. 


THE  EEVISION   OF  THE  ENGLISH  VERSION"  OF  THE 
NEW   TESTAMENT, 

BY 

J.  B.  LIGHTFOOT,  D.D., 

CANON  OP  ST.  Paul's, 

AND   HULSEAN  PUOFESSOR  OP  DIVINITY,   CAMBRIDGE  ; 

RICHARD  CIIEVENIX  TRENCH,  D.D., 

ARCHBISHOP  OP   DVBLIN  ; 

C.  J.  ELLICOTT,  D.D., 

BISHOP  OP  GLOUCESTER  AND   BRISTOL. 

WITH  AN  INTRODUCTION 
BY 

PHILIP  SCHAFP,  D.D., 

PROFESSOR  OP  DIVINITY  IN   THE   UNION   THEOLOGICAL  SEMINARY,   NEW   YORK. 

NEW  YORK : 

HARPER  &  BROS. 
1873. 
The  Introdxidion  was  published  separately  by  order  of  the  Committee  (3d  ed. 
1875),  and  distributed  among  the  patrons  of  the  Revision  as  a  sort  of  programme. 


ANGLO-AMERICAN   BIBLE   REVISION, 

BY 

MEMBERS  OP  THE 
AMERICAN  REVISION   COMMITTEE. 

PRINTED  FOR  PRIV.'M'E  CIRCULATION. 
NEW  YORK: 

NOS.  43  &  44  BIBLE  HOUSE. 

PUBLISHED  BY  THE   AMERICAN   SUNDAY-SCHOOL  UNION,  PHILADELPHIA. 
1879. 

This  book  has  gone  through  several  editions  and  was  twice  reprinted  in  London 
by  James  Nisbet  &  Co.,  and  the  London  Sunday-School  Union,  50  Old  Bailey. 

The  following  is  a  list  of  articles  : 
List  of  English  Revisers. 
List  of  American  Revisers. 
Anglo-American  Revision. 

Introductory  Statement.     Philip  Schaff. 

The  Authorized  Version  and  English  Versions  on  which  it  is  based. 

Chas.  P.  Krauth. 
The  English  Bible  as  a  Classic.     T.  W.  Chambers. 
Reasons  for  a  New  Revision.    Theodore  D.  Woolsey. 


BOOKS    PUBLISHED    BY    AMERICAN    REVISION    COMMITTEE.       73 

The  Current  Version  and  Present  Needs.  G.  Emlen  Hare. 
The  Hebrew  Text  of  the  Old  Testament.  Howard  Osgood. 
Hebrew  Philology  and  Biblical  Science.  W.  Henry  Green. 
Helps  for  Translating  the  Hebrew  Scriptures  at  the  Time  the  Ancient  Version 

was  Made.     George  E.  Day. 
Inaccuracies  of  the  Authorized  Version  of  the  Old  Testament. 

Joseph  Packard. 

The  New  Testament  Text.     Ezra  Abbot. 

Inaccuracies  of  the  Authorized  Version  in  respect  of  Grammar  and  Exegesis. 

A  C.  Kendrick. 
True  Conservatism  in  Respect  to  Changes  in  the  English  and  Greek  Text. 

Timothy  Dwight. 
The  Greek  Verb  in  the  New  Testament.     Matthew  B.  Riddle. 
Unwarranted  Verbal  Differences  and  Agreements  in  the  English  Version. 

J.  Henry  Thayer. 
Archaisms;   or,  Obsolete  and  Unusual  Words  and  Phrases  in  the  English 

Bible.    Howard  Crosby. 
The  Proper  Names  of  the  Bible.     Charles  A.  Aiken. 
The  Use  of  Italics  in  the  Bible.     Thomas  Chase. 
Paragraphs,  Chapters,  and  Verses  in  the  Bible.     James  Strong. 
Revision  of  the  Scriptures  and  Church  Authority,     Alfred  Lee, 
General  Index.   } 
Index  of  Texts,  f  • 

THE  NEW   EEVISION  AND   ITS   STUDY, 

JOHN  D.  WATTLES. 

PHILADELPHIA  : 

188L 

CONTENTS. 
The  Gospels  in  the  New  Revision,     By  Professor  Ezra  Abbot,  D.D.,  LL.U. 
The  Acts  in  the  New  Revision.     By  Professor  M.  B.  Riddle,  D.D. 
The  Pauline  Epistles  in  the  New  Revision.    By  Professor  Timothy  Dwight,  D.D. 
The  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  in  the   New   Revision.      By  Professor  J.   Henry 

Thayer,  D.D. 
The  Catholic  Epistles  in  the  New  Revision.     By  Professor  A.  C.  Kendrick,  D.D., 

LL.D. 
The  Revelation  in  the  New  Testament,     By  Chancellor  Howard  Crosby,  D.D., 

LL.D. 

PEAISE-SONGS   OF   ISEAEL. 

A    NEW    EENDERING    OF   THE    BOOK    OF    PSALMS, 

BY 

JOHN  De  WITT,  D.D. 

OF  THE  THEOLOGICAL  SEMINARY,  NEW   BRUNSWICK,  N.  J, 
A  MEMBER  OF  THE  AMERICAN   OLD   TESTAMENT  REVISION  COMPANY. 

NEW  YORK: 

RICHARD  BRINKERHOFF. 

1884. 

Dedicated  to  the  American  Revision  Committee. 


74       BOOKS    PUBLISHED    BY    AMERICAN    REVISION    COMMITTEE. 

A   COMPANION   TO  THE   GEEEK  TESTAMENT   AND 
THE   ENGLISH   VERSION, 

BY 

PHILIP  SCHAFF, 

PRESIDENT  OF  THE  AMERICAN   COMMITTEE  ON  REVISION. 
WITH   FAC-SIMILE   ILLUSTRATIONS   OF   MSS.  AND   STANDARD   EDITIONS   OF   THE   NEW 

TESTAMENT. 

HARPER  &  BROS. 

KEW  YORK 

MACMILLAN  &  CO.,  LONDON. 
1883. 

2d  EDITION,    REVISED,    1885. 

Dedicated  to  the  American  Revision  Committee. 


A   COMPANION   TO   THE   EE VISED   OLD   TESTAMENT, 

SHOWING   THE   LEADING   CHANGES   MADE   AND   THE   REASONS    FOR   MAKING   THEM, 

BY 

TALBOT  W.   CHAMBERS,  D.D. 

A   MEMBER  OF  THE   OLD   TESTAMENT   REVISION   COMPANY. 

NEW  YORK : 

FUNK  &   WAGNALLS. 

1885. 


Date  Due 

-Ti/?»i-1*^»««»."MW*. 

^^ 

-     ,,00m^ 

imssm^^ 

f 

^ 

c 

^ 

NNMMHWMIIMIIMIMIW^^ 


.5^ii>%. 


